From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DFE1C000E for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:26:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF7A4403F0 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:26:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nxxDHAJgg5m5 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:26:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4318.protonmail.ch (mail-4318.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.18]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16790403EC for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:26:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 23:26:23 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1625527588; bh=yadTfZxRgcWupptf6Nyys93DHlqw8dcwcIfuES7k3TQ=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=LQNn4pOCOwurICnekZCXi1IwfXdfftK3y2qgR5Iwli0MNQ5cMkwAEXptdI3cRWpSU T9YVrOK4D1FSgRIsI9xq+S9XCw1gRCo9xDq8mQFomZ5tVO0e+ul4EWVOoWFErIZknD 1MBlIZQsMRElmsrTcP6cwB05X3Ul+IwdDialAR2I= To: Billy Tetrud , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 23:26:34 -0000 Good morning Billy, > 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 possi= ble.=C2=A0 Thinking about this in terms of economic logic: Every channel is anchored onchain, and that anchor (the funding txout) is p= roof of the existence, and size, of the channel. 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. * If the counterparty is a true third party, it has no incentive to lie abo= ut 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 = will 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 cha= nnel is owned by the custodian and it would be fairly dumb of he custodian = to claim to have less funds than the entire channel. Perhaps a more practical problem is that Lightning channel states change fa= irly quickly, and there are possible race conditions, due to network latenc= y (remember, both nodes need to sign, meaning both of them need to communic= ate with each other, thus hit by network latency and other race conditions)= where a custodian Lightning node is unable to "freeze" a snapshot of its c= urrent state and make an atomic proof-of-reserves of *all* channels. Regards, ZmnSCPxj