Re: [bitcoin-dev] Batch exchange withdrawal to lightning requires covenants

From: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail•com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: "lightning-dev\\\\\\\\@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<lightning-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Batch exchange withdrawal to lightning requires covenants
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 13:10:42 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAB3F3Dtb2s7gCjV6ok3=XjOx174DEuRksij4GOoFD20atwJfig@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Ckp3N2cHGyyFyTp8IkjqYwnXsef1KxzhFs9vHQvFCpdWKUCrCfpxLBAgIXsKEtTNQqvfdyywt7weJd2pVz8UKn6egfRy46-xd17pnltcQyU=@protonmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2454 bytes --]

> I do not know if existing splice implementations actually perform such a
check.
Unless all splice implementations do this, then any kind of batched
splicing is risky.

As long as the implementation decides to splice again at some point when a
prior
splice isn't confirming, it will self-resolve once any subsequent splice is
confirmed.

Cheers,
Greg

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 1:04 PM ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Good morning Bastien,
>
> I have not gotten around to posting it yet, but I have a write-up in my
> computer with the title:
>
> > Batched Splicing Considered Risky
>
> The core of the risk is that if:
>
> * I have no funds right now in a channel (e.g. the LSP allowed me to have
> 0 reserve, or this is a newly-singlefunded channel from the LSP to me).
> * I have an old state (e.g. for a newly-singlefunded channel, it could
> have been `update_fee`d, so that the initial transaction is old state).
>
> Then if I participate in a batched splice, I can disrupt the batched
> splice by broadcasting the old state and somehow convincing miners to
> confirm it before the batched splice.
>
> Thus, it is important for *any* batched splicing mechanism to have a
> backout, where if the batched splice transaction can no longer be confirmed
> due to some participant disrupting it by posting an old commitment
> transaction, either a subset of the splice is re-created or the channels
> revert back to pre-splice state (with knowledge that the post-splice state
> can no longer be confirmed).
>
> I know that current splicing tech is to run both the pre-splice and
> post-splice state simultaneously until the splicing transaction is
> confirmed.
> However we need to *also* check if the splicing transaction *cannot* be
> confirmed --- by checking if the other inputs to the splice transaction
> were already consumed by transactions that have deeply confirmed, and in
> that case, to drop the post-splice state and revert to the pre-splice state.
> I do not know if existing splice implementations actually perform such a
> check.
> Unless all splice implementations do this, then any kind of batched
> splicing is risky.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3009 bytes --]