Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0411FC000B for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:41:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8992826EA for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:41:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ujr4t0kXyVg3 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:41:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4318.protonmail.ch (mail-4318.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.18]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5292826DE for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:41:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:41:42 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1645270908; bh=gLy7+kddxmgS/daFlpvsSligrfRpn+Xxg3Yetno5hc0=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID; b=B0ZBQLt4WrrPe6RHcu6Dy0+1jX4bJz9RJJWkFRRxUoV9I1dIxmLpWOEgdd1BtiBCm 3Hit2PwD1z1nlmB93r0sXqDTVlGtoCCuyiiu1CXwQY0U6gBtQ/28E1D8furck6MKXG tk6RkiiclzEhyoJARV9KvtzzPjnfI9spV3PSmeOZZCmts4XAYiEpIJt0htJm16mLMS GRLUsDiBaeXPTgldbDP42W6xOPW3bpJdielyxVR2/DGLcEhnyFeF/5Qf2iOOxuRIJ4 qNwaz+TMz9bcv75CNht/Wqkd0eFg2BWAT7EUHukiKZqVBKLrtZ6I37hshlEyUC45vh d8+eiVrcF+scA== To: Billy Tetrud , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <6nZ-SkxvJLrOCOIdUtLOsdnl94DoX_NHY0uwZ7sw78t24FQ33QJlJU95W7Sk1ja5EFic5a3yql14MLmSAYFZvLGBS4lDUJfr8ut9hdB7GD4=@protonmail.com> <0mhhHzTun8dpIcLda1CLFihMsgLoWQUEE8woKUKhf_UHYps2w7jVzbJAUJ302kQEB1ZdvMfakP9IBUHLM8bGns-pg0NHmpuak3yjpphjJnw=@protonmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Greg Sanders Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] `OP_EVICT`: An Alternative to `OP_TAPLEAFUPDATEVERIFY` 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: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:41:54 -0000 Good morning Billy, > >=C2=A0"fully" punitive channels also make large value channels more dang= erous from the perspective of bugs causing old=C2=A0states to be published > > Wouldn't it be ideal to have the penalty be to pay for a single extra tra= nsaction 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 tha= t. Nothing in the Decker-Russell-Osunstokun paper *prevents* that --- you coul= d continue to retain per-participant versions of update+state transactions = (congruent to the per-participant commitment transactions of Poon-Dryja) an= d 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 itsel= f without regard to fees, on the understanding that the reader already know= s fees exist and need to be paid. Regards, ZmnSCPxj