public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
To: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] `OP_EVICT`: An Alternative to `OP_TAPLEAFUPDATEVERIFY`
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:42:54 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <EoJPTKIHFCBpB505PNjhQp3Iuou-FhQqNwzqVOvFh5W2qx_d0phXLuVPGdjQhYqEma6BX1TfDxRQ1XpCaqZQPF2PWMhTnyTrEnkmtKFpmnw=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALZpt+EUm06LxMmaQd0wxZ5cNtE_+jCQUWDmVrGTJx6ADQT4mA@mail.gmail.com>

Good morning Antoine,

> TLUV doesn't assume cooperation among the construction participants once the Taproot tree is setup. EVICT assumes cooperation among the remaining construction participants to satisfy the final CHECKSIG.
>
> So that would be a feature difference between TLUV and EVICT, I think ?

`OP_TLUV` leaves the transaction output with the remaining Tapleaves intact, and, optionally, with a point subtracted from Taproot internal pubkey.

In order to *truly* revive the construct, you need a separate transaction that spends that change output, and puts it back into a new construct.

See: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2022-February/003479.html
I describe how this works.

That `OP_EVICT` does another `CHECKSIG` simply cuts through the separate transaction that `OP_TLUV` would require in order to revive the construct.

> > I thought it was part of Taproot?
>
> I checked BIP342 again, *as far as I can read* (unreliable process), it sounds like it was proposed by BIP118 only.

*shrug* Okay!

> > A single participant withdrawing their funds unilaterally can do so by evicting everyone else (and paying for those evictions, as sort of a "nuisance fee").
>
> I see, I'm more interested in the property of a single participant withdrawing their funds, without affecting the stability of the off-chain pool and without cooperation with other users. This is currently a restriction of the channel factories fault-tolerance. If one channel goes on-chain, all the outputs are published.

See also: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2022-February/003479.html

Generally, the reason for a channel to go *onchain*, instead of just being removed inside the channel factory and its funds redistributed elsewhere, is that an HTLC/PTLC is about to time out.
The blockchain is really the only entity that can reliably enforce timeouts.

And, from the above link:

> * If a channel has an HTLC/PTLC time out:
>   * If the participant to whom the HTLC/PTLC is offered is
>     offline, that may very well be a signal that it is unlikely
>     to come online soon.
>     The participant has strong incentives to come online before
>     the channel is forcibly closed due to the HTLC/PTLC timeout,
>     so if it is not coming online, something is very wrong with
>     that participant and we should really evict the participant.
>   * If the participant to whom the HTLC/PTLC is offered is
>     online, then it is not behaving properly and we should
>     really evict the participant.

Note the term "evict" as well --- the remaining participants that are presumably still behaving correctly (i.e. not letting HTLC/PTLC time out) evict the participants that *are*, and that is what `OP_EVICT` does, as its name suggests.

Indeed, I came up with `OP_EVICT` *after* musing the above link.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj


      reply	other threads:[~2022-02-23 11:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-18  2:45 [bitcoin-dev] `OP_EVICT`: An Alternative to `OP_TAPLEAFUPDATEVERIFY` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-18 13:53 ` Erik Aronesty
2022-02-18 14:48   ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-18 15:50     ` Erik Aronesty
2022-02-18 16:06       ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-18 13:55 ` Jonas Nick
2022-02-18 18:09 ` Antoine Riard
2022-02-18 23:39   ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-19  0:56     ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-02-19  1:17       ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-19  1:46       ` Greg Sanders
2022-02-19  7:21         ` Billy Tetrud
2022-02-19 11:41           ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-19 21:59             ` Billy Tetrud
2022-02-22  0:17     ` Antoine Riard
2022-02-23 11:42       ` ZmnSCPxj [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='EoJPTKIHFCBpB505PNjhQp3Iuou-FhQqNwzqVOvFh5W2qx_d0phXLuVPGdjQhYqEma6BX1TfDxRQ1XpCaqZQPF2PWMhTnyTrEnkmtKFpmnw=@protonmail.com' \
    --to=zmnscpxj@protonmail.com \
    --cc=aj@erisian.com.au \
    --cc=antoine.riard@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox