From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4D4C0032 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2023 00:56:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D1BC60ACF for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2023 00:56:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 7D1BC60ACF Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=TFIjKLQK X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pt1oU81XDKMW for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2023 00:56:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-41104.protonmail.ch (mail-41104.protonmail.ch [185.70.41.104]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC33760F46 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2023 00:56:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org DC33760F46 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1694912178; x=1695171378; bh=rNGY5f4YJIAu5o7uH3rwlaf8f11Wto5Fvmr/xRafT00=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=TFIjKLQKGtIEFessc0VFpdaOREBC9WK6EVSaB7tok5XMI5l/+o0y1zp9OQwxU3AIp 2wh7Va9troQ75birIlweeJ1hFsshrd2IbNdO39ZmlyO8cru9mHxfna0WGakx9ePzuv zd5BPmO78EKHd/82kHqdlseW6hueqb+DquZ8WAtmNCfV2Wo4duLM4DICaoKjCOUIdW fewDwSpHYDqNXN+Cs6iqouj741vdrBR9U3vt8rxblEbhxqn+eYDwo3+V646Vsg7goS tNbHJuGMGl+e3V5Rx7GKN1Gbu93Gmr68wHWLHANfGt5IxlM5kYdnBdYGSgjTDOaVMc NXnyCQ4sD2qkg== Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 00:56:04 +0000 To: Rusty Russell From: jlspc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87bke9a23j.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87bke9a23j.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Feedback-ID: 36436663:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 08:43:51 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , "lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Lightning With Simple Covenants 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: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 00:56:32 -0000 Hi Rusty, > I've read the start of the paper on my vacation, and am still > digesting it. But even so far, it presents some delightful > possibilities. Great! > As with some other proposals, it's worth noting that the cost of > enforcement is dramatically increased. It's no longer one or two txs, > it's 10+. If the "dedicated user" contributes some part of the expected > fee, the capital efficiency is reduced (and we're back to "how much is > enough?"). Yes, this is certainly an issue, and it affects both settling the channel o= n-chain and resolving HTLCS on-chain. The paper has a few ideas about how "short-cut" transactions could be used = to address the cost of enforcing HTLCs on-chain. It may be possible to do something similar for the channel itself, but that= 's more complex because of the value included in the channel and the potent= ial for channels with different capacities in a single timeout-tree. > But worst case (dramatic dedicated user failure) it's only a 2x penalty > on number of onchain txs, which seems acceptable if the network is > sufficiently mature that these failure events are rare. > Note also that the (surprisingly common!) "user goes away" case where > the casual user fails to rollover only returns funds to the dedicated > user; relying on legal and normal custody policies in this case may be > preferable to an eternal burden on the UTXO set with the current > approach! Agreed. Thanks, John > Thankyou! > Rusty. Sent with Proton Mail secure email.