From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail•com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] `OP_EVICT`: An Alternative to `OP_TAPLEAFUPDATEVERIFY`
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 15:59:41 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDY6X3X4ne0AatGaVx9tZSsi9V4hTAVfef-Hqe1kH0SXHA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <gcBcBwsL0ocO4fpTF1ZNkFTWGNhuPCHpbwjV5pzO4I2IR9WOfEEsQqL_i2IMqV2k8eDj9POJlQ0IX7eIzovjYq7gV6E6LTOjmAlINIIbxQM=@protonmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1219 bytes --]
Thanks for the clarification ZmnSCPxj!
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 5:41 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com> wrote:
> Good morning Billy,
>
> > > "fully" punitive channels also make large value channels more
> dangerous from the perspective of bugs causing old states to be published
> >
> > Wouldn't it be ideal to have the penalty be to pay for a single extra
> transaction fee? That way there is a penalty so cheating attempts aren't
> free (for someone who wants to close a channel anyway) and yet a single fee
> isn't going to be much of a concern in the accidental publishing case. It
> still perplexes me why eltoo chose no penalty at all vs a small penalty
> like that.
>
> Nothing in the Decker-Russell-Osunstokun paper *prevents* that --- you
> could continue to retain per-participant versions of update+state
> transactions (congruent to the per-participant commitment transactions of
> Poon-Dryja) and have each participant hold a version that deducts the fee
> from their main owned funds.
> The Decker-Russell-Osuntokun paper simply focuses on the mechanism by
> itself without regard to fees, on the understanding that the reader already
> knows fees exist and need to be paid.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1550 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-19 22:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-18 2:45 ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-18 13:53 ` Erik Aronesty
2022-02-18 14:48 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-18 15:50 ` Erik Aronesty
2022-02-18 16:06 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-18 13:55 ` Jonas Nick
2022-02-18 18:09 ` Antoine Riard
2022-02-18 23:39 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-19 0:56 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-02-19 1:17 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-19 1:46 ` Greg Sanders
2022-02-19 7:21 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-02-19 11:41 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-19 21:59 ` Billy Tetrud [this message]
2022-02-22 0:17 ` Antoine Riard
2022-02-23 11:42 ` ZmnSCPxj
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=CAGpPWDY6X3X4ne0AatGaVx9tZSsi9V4hTAVfef-Hqe1kH0SXHA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=billy.tetrud@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=ZmnSCPxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=gsanders87@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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