From: Joseph Poon <joseph@lightning•network>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - We need more usecases to motivate the change
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 13:00:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151006200031.GA4076@lightning.network> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151003143056.GA27942@muck>
Hi Peter,
On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 04:30:56PM +0200, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> So we need to make the case for two main things:
>
> 1) We have applications that need a relative (instead of absolute CLTV)
Lightning network needs RCLTV for bidireciontal payment channels without
an explicit expiration date. Without a relative locktime, there is an
economic tradeoff between longer channel expiry dates due to lower fees,
and the time-value delay for non-cooperation. Due to this tradeoff,
there is a risk that people may create channels with entities which they
believe will be around in the future and act in a particular way. In
other words, it is possible that people will attach reputation as part
of their decision-making for channel creation.
> 2) Additionally to RCLTV, we need to implement this via nSequence
>
> However I don't think we've done a good job showing why we need to
> implement this feature via nSequence. BIP68 describes the new nSequence
> semantics, and gives the rational for them as being a
> "Consensus-enforced tx replacement" mechanism, with a bidirectional
> payment channel as an example of this in action. However, the
> bidirectional payment channel concept itself can be easily implemented
> with CLTV alone. There is a small drawback in that the initial
> transaction could be delayed, reducing the overall time the channel
> exists, but the protocol already assumes that transactions can be
> reliably confirmed within a day - significantly less than the proposed
> 30 days duration of the channel. That example alone I don't think
> justifies a fairly complex soft-fork that limits future upgrades; we
> need more justification.
The examples (including for Lightning Network) in BIP 112 provides a
rationale for using a relative locktime which cannot be achieved using
CLTV/hard-nLocktime alone. Without BIP 112, I agree the example in BIP
68 can also be done with nLocktime, but I think they sort of go
together?
However, there are some advantages to using some kind of relative
locktime field such as nSequence over purely a script opcode. This is
especially useful if one presumes some kind of long-term malleability
fix which does not include directly signing the TXID of the parent
transaction. It allows one to update dependent spending transactions
after-the-fact; after transactions are signed. If there are
unbroadcasted 2-of-2 multisig output transactions, where Tx1 is
confirmed on-chain and off-chain Tx2 spends from Tx1, they can elect to
spend Tx3a from the output of Tx2. Tx3a can have an nSequence value
which requires a minimum of 100 block confirmations of Tx2 to elapse
before Tx3a can be broadcast. As neither Tx2 or Tx3a have yet broadcast,
they can elect to double-spend Tx2 with a new transaction with a lower
nSequence value, e.g. Tx3b. This is important, as Tx2 will *always* be
spendable so creating new revocation rules is useful for Tx2.
I think Mark had once described the general idea is to have a similar
separation of the opcode and the actual validation of block height in
the codebase as nLockTime/OP_CLTV, as having pure validation in the
script which may make things a bit ugly.
> So, what else can the community come up with? nSequence itself exists
> because of a failed feature that turned out to not work as intended;
> it'd be a shame to make that kind of mistake again, so let's get our
> semantics and use-cases in the BIPs and documented before we deploy.
I agree. There may be some impact for future changes in Bitcoin, wrt BIP
68. For BIP 112, I think the impact could be minimal, but there may be
future interpretations of nSequence. In particular, in the long term
there may be some kind of need for some kind of "timestop" bit (to
define whether to count relative blockheight or timestopped
blockheight), which already consumes unreserved space. To account for
more than one upgrade, the next future upgrade after BIP 68 may be
implemented by taking the unused most significant bit in nSequence as
defined in BIP 68 in combination with using up a version field bit.
jl1202 had previously suggested doing this for BIP 68 itself:
e7b394187fd96bd77a1c49f7c9b7a9b2@xbt•hk
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-October/011358.html
As-is, the only actual tradeoff made by BIP 68 is reducing range by
half. I think BIP 68 works as-is or with burning an nVersion bit today,
as it should allow for future (necessary) upgrades.
--
Joseph Poon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-06 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-03 14:30 Peter Todd
2015-10-03 18:49 ` jl2012
2015-10-04 8:35 ` Anthony Towns
2015-10-04 12:04 ` s7r
2015-10-05 22:03 ` Alex Morcos
2015-10-06 0:19 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-10-06 11:09 ` Peter Todd
2015-10-06 0:28 ` Btc Drak
2015-10-06 1:58 ` Rusty Russell
2015-10-08 17:41 ` Peter Todd
2015-10-09 1:38 ` Rusty Russell
2015-10-15 13:47 ` Alex Morcos
2015-10-15 16:27 ` Btc Drak
2015-10-15 16:37 ` Adam Back
2015-10-15 16:41 ` Alex Morcos
2015-10-15 18:31 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-10-15 23:18 ` Rusty Russell
2015-10-16 1:26 ` Rusty Russell
2015-10-19 10:43 ` Jorge Timón
2015-10-06 20:00 ` Joseph Poon [this message]
2015-10-08 17:43 ` Peter Todd
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=20151006200031.GA4076@lightning.network \
--to=joseph@lightning$(echo .)network \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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