From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Alex Schoof <alex.schoof@gmail•com>
Cc: "Bitcoin Protocol Discussion"
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
lightning-dev <lightning-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
"Héctor José Cárdenas Pacheco" <hcarpach@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] Sending OP_RETURN via Bitcoin Lightning
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 07:56:19 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YbH884j/+rZNcMjG@petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+2b5C1bfHnNtz6jWRmzr-2Dz3DpyvE1Z_LFCsJgBpbP-bULYQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1666 bytes --]
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 07:12:45AM -0500, Alex Schoof wrote:
> The multisig scheme is interesting. From my understanding of Single Use
> Seals, since seal n commits to seal n+1, for the on-chain aggregation seals
> you would want to pick some common aggregation service provider ahead of
> time and if that provider disappears, you’re stuck and cant close the next
> seal. If instead you say “this seal commits to three of the five of these
> next seals” then you mitigate both availability and censorship risk. Am I
> getting that right?
Re: "some common aggregation service provider", you might be misunderstanding
the protocol: since seals are trustless with regard to validity, I can validate
your seal, regardless of which aggregation service you use.
But other than that, I think we're on the same page!
A concrete example would be an exchange: they do a lot of transactions, so they
could choose to be their own aggregator, and wouldn't need any multisig at all
because they can trust themselves not to censor themselves. :) Meanwhile, one
of their customers might use 3-of-5 as you suggest, as they only do a few
transactions a month.
Interestingly, in some scenarios it might be worthwhile to both run your own
aggregator, and use multisig. Eg Alice could use a 2-of-3 with two third-party
aggregators, and her own aggregation chain. If both third-parties are up, she
does no on-chain transactions at all; if one third-party is down, she can use
her own, and the remaining third-party. Thus she would only do an on-chain
transaction to defeat censorship/failure.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-09 12:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-06 9:54 [bitcoin-dev] " Héctor José Cárdenas Pacheco
2021-12-06 10:20 ` Karl
2021-12-06 11:31 ` [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] " Martin Habovštiak
2021-12-06 16:35 ` Christian Moss
2021-12-09 9:12 ` Peter Todd
2021-12-09 9:49 ` Christian Moss
2021-12-09 10:07 ` Peter Todd
2021-12-09 12:12 ` Alex Schoof
2021-12-09 12:56 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2021-12-06 12:38 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Christian Moss
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=YbH884j/+rZNcMjG@petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=alex.schoof@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hcarpach@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=lightning-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.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