From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail•com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP Draft: Atomic Cross Chain Transfer Protocol
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 00:02:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OWJAGonitgrP87WBBwenztqGrR_6qUYZnR_8PZUaSdm-A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OXO2uQb=yhsjfvTUC33kQ9HVvaXxhPsd3Ki4Oy2jE9SCg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2239 bytes --]
I updated again.
The new version only requires non-standard transactions on one of the two
networks.
Next step is a simple TCP / RPC server that will implement the protocol to
trade between testnet and mainnet. Timeouts of much less than 24 hours
should be possible now.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail•com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>
>> Instead of TX0, TX1, etc, can you put some kind of meaningful identifier
>> for
>> these transactions?
>>
>
> Sorry, that is the names come from the original thread, where I was
> outlining the idea. I updated the names.
>
>
>> TX1 and TX2 *cannot* be signed until after TX0 is completely signed by
>> both
>> parties.
>
>
> The bail in transactions are only signed by one of the parties. They are
> kept secret until the refund/payout transactions are all properly signed.
>
> There is a malleability risk though, hence the need for the 3rd party.
>
> It works on the same refund principle as payment channels.
>
> After TX0 is signed, but before TX2 is signed, either party could
>> walk away or otherwise hold the funds hostage. The sequence of signing
>> proposed in this BIP is *not possible to perform*.
>
>
> TX0 is not broadcast until the refund transactions are complete.
>
>
>> How did you implement and test this? :/
>>
>
> This is a draft at the moment.
>
> There is an implementation of (almost) this system but not by me. This
> proposal reduces the number of non-standard transaction types required.
>
> A full implement is the next step.
>
>
>> What is the purpose of the OP_EQUAL_VERIFY in TX4? I don't see a use...
>>
>
> That is a typo, I have updated it.
>
>
>> IMO, there should be separate BIPs for the exchange itself, and the
>> protocol
>> to negotiate the exchange.
>
>
> I can do that.
>
>
>> I would recommend changing the latter from JSON-RPC
>> to some extension of the Payment Protocol, if possible.
>>
>
> I wanted it to be as simple as possible, but I guess MIME is just a
> different way of doing things.
>
>>
>> Perhaps it would be good to only support compressed keys, to discourage
>> use of
>> uncompressed ones..
>>
>
> I would have no objection.
>
>
>>
>> Luke
>>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4323 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-30 23:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-30 18:03 Tier Nolan
2014-04-30 18:59 ` Luke Dashjr
2014-04-30 20:48 ` Tier Nolan
2014-04-30 23:02 ` Tier Nolan [this message]
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=CAE-z3OWJAGonitgrP87WBBwenztqGrR_6qUYZnR_8PZUaSdm-A@mail.gmail.com \
--to=tier.nolan@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/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