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 0435BC000E for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:32:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E7C40380 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:32:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.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 7zaJJDOIUR0v for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:32:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com (mail-pg1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA19E401B6 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:32:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id f5so10367370pgv.3 for ; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 16:32:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=RtKEc9yiPDAU9ZO3eEsPJD2Wv49kpIKlhR3EADcryXs=; b=SFfAxOKtzOGROc1f/GfJstv1ze/tljdG3gOe978dA/xtnAL0KK6X4wLy0zXCktym+7 pnEWFEQuJ4SpikTqf2Wk4VvrGh/dSiqHcG/44MD9r3UUHnzN709E66b0RdBnCS8YVw4m 4fuZsyBQh8LEPFaccEw4Bwk8Vg+Ub91zRiIDJedKQ7HK4KKtxhiMB/TVpqD65nkEYDtI 2GJ5okCgHD1aHArGq4bqMG2GJaesPBLnhJ/ofGjuMO5OQmqkyGtV072gJQjDQw/bWMD7 JbMfnMQ5mjiEGF665iC1lS1BfhMYNYlZCHTroTfZK6G53JPyezkNg/4jSmEJ1dj/qG8k rPmw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=RtKEc9yiPDAU9ZO3eEsPJD2Wv49kpIKlhR3EADcryXs=; b=r22gXclpGONYaCFM0v+8sdcfyuABtTV87tkLYNe8MXwrfKMwINxJ+Z2WsWvLcm5W4j iUu6DC/CMcy7eacrbR4eh4W2hYAz4axipZW6DYyfLQ0lLPAR65yQyG23qr11as19txeP AvigZ2MYvZz3noyS2TlCoZVOyKMQC7XcSYwCHDB1Mbmqv/B0r7haaTzLKjOR10ZyENe5 msX5Q2boOEDYFh3EGuBglc9LMEu6WRhSJm6S7pOhky5fW+kex3og5vDAqL31ovtq3efX 1tr+wR5bWJ9p9+/gbjk2GB4JND9mNlhGg98bPIte0vIhaF6AhB1BEM7QQ4rE+Akhun7K 4qrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5312lqLhy6LvIEQHtKNZ+JI8jA0w+hG3RLR7JvG0SUDhDV+bdnMv ADIVx3T5pFaSPbjzy+b55gSORQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwSb8dX7jZVqt6HwJOubtgIW4T+SUPnn2Hg1rjdX4VymAVC57LopnLy+9VCP1VfjYvQEtrIvg== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:824a:0:b029:2ec:89ee:e798 with SMTP id e10-20020aa7824a0000b02902ec89eee798mr17375228pfn.12.1625527925173; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 16:32:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2601:600:9c00:1d0::7844]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w2sm12095102pjq.5.2021.07.05.16.32.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Jul 2021 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Eric Voskuil Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 16:32:04 -0700 Message-Id: References: In-Reply-To: To: ZmnSCPxj , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18F72) Cc: Billy Tetrud Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proof of reserves - recording 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: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 23:32:07 -0000 If only one could prove that he won=E2=80=99t get into a boating accident. e > On Jul 5, 2021, at 16:26, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFGood morning Billy, >=20 >> I wonder if there would be some way to include the ability to prove balan= ces held on the lightning network, but I suspect that isn't generally possib= le.=20 >=20 > Thinking about this in terms of economic logic: >=20 > Every channel is anchored onchain, and that anchor (the funding txout) is p= roof of the existence, and size, of the channel. >=20 > The two participants in the channel can sign a plaintext containing their n= ode pubkeys and how much each owns. > One of the participants should provably be the custodian. >=20 > * If the counterparty is a true third party, it has no incentive to lie ab= out its money. > * Especially if the counterparty is *another* custodian who wants proof-o= f-reserves, it has every incentive to overreport, but then the first party w= ill refuse to sign. > It has a disincentive to underreport, and would itself refuse to sign a= dishonest report that assigns more funds to the first party. > The only case that would be acceptable to both custodians would be to h= onestly report their holdings in the Lightning channel. > * If the counterparty is a sockpuppet of the custodian, then the entire ch= annel is owned by the custodian and it would be fairly dumb of he custodian t= o claim to have less funds than the entire channel. >=20 > Perhaps a more practical problem is that Lightning channel states change f= airly quickly, and there are possible race conditions, due to network latenc= y (remember, both nodes need to sign, meaning both of them need to communica= te with each other, thus hit by network latency and other race conditions) w= here a custodian Lightning node is unable to "freeze" a snapshot of its curr= ent state and make an atomic proof-of-reserves of *all* channels. >=20 > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev