public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [bitcoin-dev] Batch exchange withdrawal to lightning requires covenants
@ 2023-10-17 13:03 Bastien TEINTURIER
  2023-10-17 17:04 ` ZmnSCPxj
  2023-10-17 19:10 ` [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] " Antoine Riard
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Bastien TEINTURIER @ 2023-10-17 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, lightning-dev\\@lists.linuxfoundation.org

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3249 bytes --]

Good morning list,

I've been trying to design a protocol to let users withdraw funds from
exchanges directly into their lightning wallet in an efficient way
(with the smallest on-chain footprint possible).

I've come to the conclusion that this is only possible with some form of
covenants (e.g. `SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT` would work fine in this case). The
goal of this post is to explain why, and add this usecase to the list of
useful things we could do if we had covenants (insert "wen APO?" meme).

The naive way of enabling lightning withdrawals is to make the user
provide a lightning invoice that the exchange pays over lightning. The
issue is that in most cases, this simply shifts the burden of making an
on-chain transaction to the user's wallet provider: if the user doesn't
have enough inbound liquidity (which is likely), a splice transaction
will be necessary. If N users withdraw funds from an exchange, we most
likely will end up with N separate splice transactions.

Hence the idea of batching those into a single transaction. Since we
don't want to introduce any intermediate transaction, we must be able
to create one transaction that splices multiple channels at once. The
issue is that for each of these channels, we need a signature from the
corresponding wallet user, because we're spending the current funding
output, which is a 2-of-2 multisig between the wallet user and the
wallet provider. So we run into the usual availability problem: we need
signatures from N users who may not be online at the same time, and if
one of those users never comes online or doesn't complete the protocol,
we must discard the whole batch.

There is a workaround though: each wallet user can provide a signature
using `SIGHASH_SINGLE | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY` that spends their current
funding output to create a new funding output with the expected amount.
This lets users sign *before* knowing the final transaction, which the
exchange can create by batching pairs of inputs/outputs. But this has
a fatal issue: at that point the wallet user has no way of spending the
new funding output (since it is also a 2-of-2 between the wallet user
and the wallet provider). The wallet provider can now blackmail the user
and force them to pay to get their funds back.

Lightning normally fixes this by exchanging signatures for a commitment
transaction that sends the funds back to their owners *before* signing
the parent funding/splice transaction. But here that is impossible,
because we don't know yet the `txid` of the batch transaction (that's
the whole point, we want to be able to sign before creating the batch)
so we don't know the new `prevout` we should spend from. I couldn't find
a clever way to work around that, and I don't think there is one (but
I would be happy to be wrong).

With `SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT`, this is immediately fixed: we can exchange
anyprevout signatures for the commitment transaction, and they will be
valid to spend from the batch transaction. We are safe from signature
reuse, because funding keys are rotated at each splice so we will never
create another output that uses the same 2-of-2 script.

I haven't looked at other forms of covenants, but most of them likely
address this problem as well.

Cheers,
Bastien

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3514 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-10-19 17:10 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-10-17 13:03 [bitcoin-dev] Batch exchange withdrawal to lightning requires covenants Bastien TEINTURIER
2023-10-17 17:04 ` ZmnSCPxj
2023-10-17 17:10   ` Greg Sanders
2023-10-17 17:17     ` ZmnSCPxj
2023-10-17 19:10 ` [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] " Antoine Riard
2023-10-18 14:35   ` Bastien TEINTURIER
2023-10-18 18:03     ` Antoine Riard
2023-10-19  7:35       ` Bastien TEINTURIER
2023-10-19 17:09         ` Antoine Riard

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox