Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20257C000B for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 02:30:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016D340201 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 02:30:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DztdBQlfUZjU for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 02:30:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mta32.mta.hdems.com (mta32.mta.hdems.com [52.198.247.255]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0D05400CE for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 02:30:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo.hdems.com (unknown [10.5.84.10]) by mta32.mta.hdems.com ('HDEMS') with ESMTPSA id 4JsVVx6l1gzlfbkY for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 02:30:49 +0000 (UTC) X-HDEMS-MO-TENANT: garage.co.jp Received: from mail-ed1-f71.google.com (mail-ed1-f71.google.com. [209.85.208.71]) by gwsmtp.prod.mo.hdems.com with ESMTPS id gwsmtpd-trans-a11ee894-c0de-4e53-bcd0-62566e736699 for ; Mon, 07 Feb 2022 02:30:45 +0000 Received: by mail-ed1-f71.google.com with SMTP id ed6-20020a056402294600b004090fd8a936so6744575edb.23 for ; Sun, 06 Feb 2022 18:30:44 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5rETRZ8fjeF4qnYiQR7a9jJSHXPa9y5J9tjc4simpik=; b=GA30oHhwOWuBjrs103GJ6iHTg9opTwx1GFs4z5toRCA0p0NXFbpRCGmzx45MOS6Xsb wSdHZ8wHRi/rugPRz90gobFrOs9beuSGkfq0ArwWdVC990CQGFFSSCDhX/di/bU5bpt7 GCh1WNEiifhmZ1wUj+t2Yk4ieQA/+Wb+RuZTmXPtVGLkeg24S4/kzEmfC3eZWIEQVvv6 m4gLZAK303IU601DitOTfgtWO8vBcns27+U7QeTkRYZKHDvMI76Fg7bnqQXldRLnbaCX E4fDVvyCNV/RRcvb83RHGPOGO/8ET6QJjYIAs7DQ9BdIQdoanNNjO5TwynI8ZchhLOc7 n1tQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531A/6kAUBqhWSrVp+Vxk3B/VE9KiOL5nhJiEyrkUykTlEF/Jvlz KOLlNVPWy3oIVOk7vsYKbQo8L3Pn5DKoAsvo3GO8HHMW/BdAvJB+l0O2tb+9nrpQYAtES9hWn4m lZPCBUfeMu7sd227K0OIOAFsu41LNcA4p/tmUAHHXgoSRmK+1gFbKxksZyp5YNIQOhvLJIy6Rs1 rmCBlHGsYNL5de/iYDyO8vgEgnP2fXIFYDVFGnblzo0H536Hufvxz57gswMvLXlEZbnozhq980h ef4RFrzV87aMQDPWRIIN9W5vhGSomlVWX7khpTkweEXRq3z2vdxyVac1hciT1GGykIiEtw0etEb QxXrO97qs8s79KWgJyjlFK1gC1M= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:26c8:: with SMTP id x8mr11927726edd.80.1644201044254; Sun, 06 Feb 2022 18:30:44 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxepvuJrWrFllE936RPr4l8cqbb05/ZdHuv4ObndgddSliVn2cXTTzEN92stuBVLKO8tM0OJH2/iu0r6S2mkNQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:26c8:: with SMTP id x8mr11927710edd.80.1644201043992; Sun, 06 Feb 2022 18:30:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Thibaut Le Guilly Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 11:30:32 +0900 Message-ID: To: Jeremy Rubin , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002ab1dc05d7646399" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 02:37:35 +0000 Cc: dlc-dev@mailmanlists.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV dramatically improves DLCs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 02:30:55 -0000 --0000000000002ab1dc05d7646399 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi all, A lot is being discussed but just wanted to react on some points. # CSFS Lloyd, good point about CSFS not providing the same privacy benefits, and OP_CAT being required in addition. And thanks Philipp for the link to your post, it was an interesting read! Jeremy >CSFS might have independent benefits, but in this case CTV is not being used in the Oracle part of the DLC, it's being used in the user generated mapping of Oracle result to Transaction Outcome. My point was that CSFS could be used both in the oracle part but also in the transaction restriction part (as in the post by Philipp), but again it does not really provide the same model as DLC as pointed out by Lloyd. # Performance Regarding how much performance benefit this CTV approach would provide, without considering the benefit of not having to transmit and store a large number of adaptor signatures, and without considering any further optimization of the anticipation points computation, I tried to get a rough estimate through some benchmarking. Basically, if I'm not mistaken, using CTV we would only have to compute the oracle anticipation points, without needing any signing or verification. I've thus made a benchmark comparing the current approach with signing + verification with only computing the anticipation points, for a single oracle with 17 digits and 10000 varying payouts (between 45000 and 55000). The results are below. Without using parallelization: baseline: [7.8658 s 8.1122 s 8.3419 s] no signing/no verification: [321.52 ms 334.18 ms 343.65 ms] Using parallelization: baseline: [3.0030 s 3.1811 s 3.3851 s] no signing/no verification: [321.52 ms 334.18 ms 343.65 ms] So it seems like the performance improvement is roughly 24x for the serial case and 10x for the parallel case. The two benchmarks are available (how to run them is detailed in the README in the same folder): * https://github.com/p2pderivatives/rust-dlc/blob/ctv-bench-simulation-baseline/dlc-manager/benches/benchmarks.rs#L290 * https://github.com/p2pderivatives/rust-dlc/blob/ctv-bench-simulation/dlc-manager/benches/benchmarks.rs#L290 Let me know if you think that's a fair simulation or not. One thing I'd like to see as well is what will be the impact of having a very large taproot tree on the size of the witness data when spending script paths that are low in the tree, and how it would affect the transaction fee. I might try to experiment with that at some point. Cheers, Thibaut On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 2:56 AM Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I'm not sure what is meant concretely by (5) but I think overall > performance is ok here. You will always have 10mins or so to confirm the > DLC so you can't be too fussy about performance! > > > I mean that if you think of the CIT points as being the X axis (or > independent axes if multivariate) of a contract, the Y axis is the > dependent variable represented by the CTV hashes. > > > For a DLC living inside a lightning channel, which might be updated > between parties e.g. every second, this means you only have to recompute > the cheaper part of the DLC only if you update the payoff curves (y axis) > only, and you only have to update the points whose y value changes. > > For on chain DLCs this point is less relevant since the latency of block > space is larger. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --0000000000002ab1dc05d7646399 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

A lot is being discussed but ju= st wanted to react on some points.

# CSFS

Lloyd, good point about CSFS not providing the same privac= y benefits, and OP_CAT being required in addition. And thanks Philipp for t= he link to your post, it was an interesting read!

= Jeremy
>CSFS might have independent benefits, but in this case CT= V is not being used in the Oracle part of the DLC, it's being used in t= he user generated mapping of Oracle result to Transaction Outcome.

My point was that CSF= S could be used both in the oracle part but also in the transaction restric= tion part (as in the post by Philipp), but again it does not really provide= the same model as DLC as pointed=C2=A0out by Lloyd.

# Performance
Regarding how much performance benefit this CTV = approach would provide, without considering the benefit of not having to tr= ansmit and store a large number of adaptor signatures, and without consider= ing any further optimization of the anticipation points computation, I trie= d to get a rough estimate through some benchmarking. Basically, if I'm = not mistaken, using CTV we would only have to compute the oracle anticipati= on points, without needing any signing or verification. I've thus made = a benchmark comparing the current approach with signing=C2=A0+ verification= with only computing the anticipation points, for a single oracle with 17 d= igits and 10000 varying payouts (between 45000 and 55000). The results are = below.

Without using= parallelization:
baseline:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 [7.8658 s 8.1122 s 8.3419 s]=C2=A0
no signing/= no verification:=C2=A0 [321.52 ms 334.18 ms 343.65 ms]=C2=A0

Using parallelization:
baseline:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [3.0030 s 3.1811 s 3.3851 s]<= /div>
no signing/no verific= ation:=C2=A0 [321.52 ms 334.18 ms 343.65 ms]

So it seems like the performance= improvement is roughly 24x for the serial case and 10x for the parallel ca= se.

The two benchmarks are available (how to run them is detailed in the READ= ME in the same folder):
*=C2=A0https://github.com/p2pderivativ= es/rust-dlc/blob/ctv-bench-simulation-baseline/dlc-manager/benches/benchmar= ks.rs#L290
*=C2=A0https://github.com/p2pderivatives/rust-dlc/blob/c= tv-bench-simulation/dlc-manager/benches/benchmarks.rs#L290

Let me know if= you think that's a fair simulation or not. One thing I'd like to s= ee as well is what will be the impact of having a very large taproot tree o= n the size of the witness data when spending script paths that are low in t= he tree,=C2=A0and how it would affect the transaction fee. I might try to e= xperiment with that at some point.

Cheers,
=
Thibaut=C2=A0
<= br>
On Mon,= Feb 7, 2022 at 2:56 AM Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or= g> wrote:
I'm not sure what is meant concretely by (5) but I think overal= l performance is ok here. You will always have 10mins or so to confirm the = DLC so you can't be too fussy about performance!
<= /blockquote>

I mean that if you think of the CIT points as being t= he X axis (or independent axes if multivariate) of a contract, the Y axis i= s the dependent variable represented by the CTV hashes.=C2=A0


For= a DLC living inside a lightning channel, which might be updated between pa= rties e.g. every second, this means you only have to recompute the cheaper = part of the DLC only if you update the payoff curves (y axis) only, and you= only have to update the points whose y value changes.

For on chain DLCs this point is less relevant since the latency o= f block space is larger.=C2=A0
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--0000000000002ab1dc05d7646399--