From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800E1C0033 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 22:00:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671824010C for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 22:00:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GipkQVqXQi2q for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 22:00:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com (mail-ed1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42B7F400B9 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 22:00:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id bq11so366017edb.2 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 14:00:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=blWWOr89XNf7Q4p7KMHgm9mJZZVfa+4uh0+sG5zs5K0=; b=k7QIpEQI3UzWpxQ0ppVhSo6j8CMGMpypQNCuunViInHUNwr1KFjXGATlDNrw49oJVq w7SRiu23djH9pVs2zcsmkij1bFCzPtjhwnXFshHJs7ZKm5fFtbqG7SerpN53wnHHDKwd KCqLEJf6ZhyQXOTXlx8HIeW8U1tTn4WjbFPEI1qMa3k19AR51U1gchRZpskdZ4y8PlLH U2sy8UMHXQgS6rAVn4X11jQEUZddavOnKHY1sH1JMqzk8wGXJ9bNoIfLeM4EzJku2HOy r3XqJ+9l3IatlEqQWHQEoyTI+vCCjRJfiGeKvwU9ZX+gkuKgqkcyVV/EQqD2/EXbMvBV +GbQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=blWWOr89XNf7Q4p7KMHgm9mJZZVfa+4uh0+sG5zs5K0=; b=C5tJ7wao1D9F9pItpZe4iPG8NH+aFP2zevAVTmqN/9uJzHcrCtBYBLlmX5iCTFM78/ jrXBQ3PySfDewwIQUOXMOCoU+P9FmKFrrrQT0Rw1oUjTh3Tr/ca7CtlwjnRyyz7g0bpH vIJrWILKCdgkexVBYFvDm/5e6T8IGVILC7L54k9jnDCEPktKnJ9KqH5pfDKMr1V/A86V aU6i8kmhu2GUpR77ad9j/HekjVjXlIfwUhcqptt5Ay7dJv6TWaTO28pgA7AdY4xx+1ad RkTLu90w+j4lq8QOxUx28dEn1JfTUtL32FxSGrPZVcNFE4Ws6nlJr19q/1916qKPQ38H 7Dkw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532YxG3BwfwbGDBKO6u3dMJ0WuVgmNr641CcXzI7AQVhOfsJwnn9 9Q0HfjtzTZzkXCmSirtq5Luv31KKmV10yk8G024= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzl8NklvjPkbfOKLl5Quj0G5vm0EL1Nr/MGQ/f82J+owmjY4Msjc24QOcQ25eKED3nn/5G+yd1gilKYW7hlvg0= X-Received: by 2002:a50:8a89:0:b0:410:c862:40b2 with SMTP id j9-20020a508a89000000b00410c86240b2mr14265452edj.81.1645307999192; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:59:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6nZ-SkxvJLrOCOIdUtLOsdnl94DoX_NHY0uwZ7sw78t24FQ33QJlJU95W7Sk1ja5EFic5a3yql14MLmSAYFZvLGBS4lDUJfr8ut9hdB7GD4=@protonmail.com> <0mhhHzTun8dpIcLda1CLFihMsgLoWQUEE8woKUKhf_UHYps2w7jVzbJAUJ302kQEB1ZdvMfakP9IBUHLM8bGns-pg0NHmpuak3yjpphjJnw=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Billy Tetrud Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 15:59:41 -0600 Message-ID: To: ZmnSCPxj Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d68adb05d8661e87" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 23:06:00 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Greg Sanders Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] `OP_EVICT`: An Alternative to `OP_TAPLEAFUPDATEVERIFY` X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 22:00:02 -0000 --000000000000d68adb05d8661e87 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks for the clarification ZmnSCPxj! On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 5:41 AM ZmnSCPxj wrote: > Good morning Billy, > > > > "fully" punitive channels also make large value channels more > dangerous from the perspective of bugs causing old states to be published > > > > Wouldn't it be ideal to have the penalty be to pay for a single extra > transaction fee? That way there is a penalty so cheating attempts aren't > free (for someone who wants to close a channel anyway) and yet a single fee > isn't going to be much of a concern in the accidental publishing case. It > still perplexes me why eltoo chose no penalty at all vs a small penalty > like that. > > Nothing in the Decker-Russell-Osunstokun paper *prevents* that --- you > could continue to retain per-participant versions of update+state > transactions (congruent to the per-participant commitment transactions of > Poon-Dryja) and have each participant hold a version that deducts the fee > from their main owned funds. > The Decker-Russell-Osuntokun paper simply focuses on the mechanism by > itself without regard to fees, on the understanding that the reader already > knows fees exist and need to be paid. > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj > --000000000000d68adb05d8661e87 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the clarification ZmnSCPxj!=C2=A0

On Sat, Feb 19= , 2022 at 5:41 AM ZmnSCPxj <Z= mnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:
Good morning Billy,

> >=C2=A0"fully" punitive channels also make large value ch= annels more dangerous from the perspective of bugs causing old=C2=A0states = to be published
>
> Wouldn't it be ideal to have the penalty be to pay for a single ex= tra transaction fee? That way there is a penalty so cheating attempts aren&= #39;t free (for someone who wants to close a channel anyway) and yet a sing= le fee isn't going to be much of a concern in the accidental publishing= case. It still perplexes me why eltoo chose no penalty at all vs a small p= enalty like that.

Nothing in the Decker-Russell-Osunstokun paper *prevents* that --- you coul= d continue to retain per-participant versions of update+state transactions = (congruent to the per-participant commitment transactions of Poon-Dryja) an= d have each participant hold a version that deducts the fee from their main= owned funds.
The Decker-Russell-Osuntokun paper simply focuses on the mechanism by itsel= f without regard to fees, on the understanding that the reader already know= s fees exist and need to be paid.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
--000000000000d68adb05d8661e87--