public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
To: Chris Stewart <chris@suredbits•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
	"dlc-dev@mailmanlists•org" <dlc-dev@mailmanlists•org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Recurring bitcoin/LN payments using DLCs
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2022 20:11:12 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9yZl_Q0jy6DTD0BLoU-AaGZzHGO53238vIS8t54lGqFa0Rkk6-omZrTvwP3Rq4Yl3mp0krPPANseVFHebvLFw2-wj1FwPJxFSQPYrX6ujv0=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFQwNuzimRU=Cz7MGRFoY7=cd2=We+9Q8+neOhS8UjgTamns-Q@mail.gmail.com>

Good morning Chris,

> >On the other hand, the above, where the oracle determines *when* the fund can be spent, can also be implemented by a simple 2-of-3, and called an "escrow".
>
> I think something that is underappreciated by protocol developers is the fact that multisig requires interactiveness at settlement time. The multisig escrow provider needs to know the exact details about the bitcoin transaction and needs to issue a signature (gotta sign the outpoints, the fee, the payout addresses etc).
>
> With PTLCs that isn't the case, and thus gives a UX improvement for Alice & Bob that are using the escrow provider. The oracle (or escrow) just issues attestations. Bob or Alice take those attestations and complete the adaptor signature. Instead of a bi-directional communication requirement (the oracle working with Bob or Alice to build the bitcoin tx) at settlement time there is only unidirectional communication required. Non-interactive settlement is one of the big selling points of DLC style applications IMO.
>
> One of the unfortunate things about LN is the interactiveness requirements are very high, which makes developing applications hard (especially mobile applications). I don't think this solves lightning's problems, but it is a worthy goal to reduce interactiveness requirements with new bitcoin applications to give better UX.

Good point.

I should note that 2-of-3 contracts are *not* transportable over LN, but PTLCs *are* transportable.
So the idea still has merit for LN, as a replacement for 2-fo-3 escrows.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj


  reply	other threads:[~2022-03-06 20:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-03-03 12:58 Chris Stewart
2022-03-04  8:22 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-03-05 14:45   ` Chris Stewart
2022-03-05 22:57     ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-03-06  0:14       ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-03-06 14:05       ` Chris Stewart
2022-03-06 20:11         ` ZmnSCPxj [this message]
2022-03-06 20:53           ` Chris Stewart

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='9yZl_Q0jy6DTD0BLoU-AaGZzHGO53238vIS8t54lGqFa0Rkk6-omZrTvwP3Rq4Yl3mp0krPPANseVFHebvLFw2-wj1FwPJxFSQPYrX6ujv0=@protonmail.com' \
    --to=zmnscpxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=chris@suredbits$(echo .)com \
    --cc=dlc-dev@mailmanlists$(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