From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
To: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] `OP_EVICT`: An Alternative to `OP_TAPLEAFUPDATEVERIFY`
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:41:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <gcBcBwsL0ocO4fpTF1ZNkFTWGNhuPCHpbwjV5pzO4I2IR9WOfEEsQqL_i2IMqV2k8eDj9POJlQ0IX7eIzovjYq7gV6E6LTOjmAlINIIbxQM=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGpPWDYUJ66oA2gzjXYk2fvRaRMZeY4wCyS0KmimXtid03ahCw@mail.gmail.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-19 11:41 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 [this message]
2022-02-19 21:59 ` Billy Tetrud
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='gcBcBwsL0ocO4fpTF1ZNkFTWGNhuPCHpbwjV5pzO4I2IR9WOfEEsQqL_i2IMqV2k8eDj9POJlQ0IX7eIzovjYq7gV6E6LTOjmAlINIIbxQM=@protonmail.com' \
--to=zmnscpxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=billy.tetrud@gmail$(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