Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 09:36:50 +0000
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <xnThA6WWiFPkT9o9yZFAVbnDlyNmhoOEH2nuBjp5IOVcdK88DAwQ0yKuQdzWhxApmjrMxRmzb2vBUgzgsK9Sl2ibMNmbXp-7lzgB3lhqh34=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190131060405.e7hefirxcars4bpu@erisian.com.au>
References: <9F8C0789-48E9-448A-A239-DB4AFB902A00@xbt.hk>
	<8z5NQkaOUo9z-wdBphQtZrxIf7OCtVQFvK3neMWvcRsngld5XJs-vt7CLuY46ZOp_pX8gEd92pMdkEkp8CUOMH9lUTw5ocWsbDPiaKdSa2I=@protonmail.com>
	<34B38940-524D-42B9-8A67-6A62DCE04665@xbt.hk>
	<KFCfNAmHhRvsDJs70UW3l4ssqBtdBrb8gYP5A3cN2hsTPrXVg7f5Yrt2LOo5V0QdAhhoooc3lllXxiiXSVt_28obYBl_XKAgEQkGg1kOj8I=@protonmail.com>
	<CAABEECD-2B12-4852-A440-58809EB6BF56@xbt.hk>
	<B2h-WuZWvKKnCqz_qvciHFHf16SgY_63GAF_Y5KbsiJ_wRRoZMw-LBT6Beob9oYOzm9TMaeewJhZXqvPr7TizXOLBoOsOiKPQDyax4aefGY=@protonmail.com>
	<20190131060405.e7hefirxcars4bpu@erisian.com.au>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer NOINPUT with output tagging
Precedence: list

Good morning aj,

I certainly agree.
I hope that PSBT support becomes much, much, much more widespread.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj


Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me=
ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:04 PM, Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> wr=
ote:

> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:47:38AM +0000, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> > A boutique protocol would reduce the number of existing onchain wallets=
 that could be integrated in such UI.
>
> Seems like PSBT would be a sufficient protocol:
>
> 0) lightning node generates a PSBT for a new channel,
> with no inputs and a single output of the 2-of-2 address
>
> 1.  wallet funds the PSBT but doesn't sign it, adding a change address
>     if necessary, and could combine with other tx's bustapay style
>
> 2.  lightning determines txid from PSBT, and creates update/settlement
>     tx's for funding tx so funds can be recovered
>
> 3.  wallet signs and publishes the PSBT
> 4.  lightning sees tx on chain and channel is open
>
>     That's a bit more convoluted than "(0) lightning generates an address=
 and
>     value, and creates NOINPUT update/settlement tx's for that address/va=
lue;
>     (1) wallet funds address to exactly that value; (2) lightning monitor=
s
>     blockchain for payment to that address" of course.
>
>     But it avoids letting users get into the habit of passing NOINPUT
>     addresses around, or the risk of a user typo'ing the value and losing
>     money immediately, and it has the benefit that the wallet can tweak t=
he
>     value if (eg) that avoids a change address or enhances privacy (iirc,
>     c-lightning tweaks payment values for that reason). If the channel's
>     closed cooperatively, it also avoids ever needing to publish a NOINPU=
T
>     sig (or NOINPUT tagged output).
>
>     Does that seem a fair trade off?
>
>     Cheers,
>     aj
>