path: root/21/e815bce71e7d68839d7f892df8ce023d6be1ec

Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB6BC000B
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:48:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13FFC41BA2
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:48:46 +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: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id auhdwH4YTogM
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:48:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4324.protonmail.ch (mail-4324.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.24])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 944F341B39
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:48:44 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:48:38 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
 s=protonmail3; t=1645195720;
 bh=aeZHPGRh1IGiyMwid9eQf/HTIZhuYe3fowRmtgxOV7o=;
 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=JxWEX3KGSbm1bRLFkhE6iE+Vn7cfWJNr6vaDait/WnG+VJv68XYABx695q/RjiqFM
 ePXIjaXoJM6JhQCTP8PxkxwT0WubL38zCVBQvKCQeTU31G74CWCHKfOxXOTw6tFWIE
 lEc7qw0Zlfw6kLB1JIejoeHoFUC/kZEO06kxjUFCb033q0R1GAFLGhZMvqO0B7WzSf
 UXQELSZv8Fw2nI6Bx4kgEVfTp38hse71jtUDPUjwXMLHYIhk4WdF4mEtN/W3xunLYM
 C0oKjUQYCKGT/X+0NoG9QbgYyYbkuGsGR6pcKjHwE89TW/scaTq9913XaJG5V5G3R5
 JbJhA0aPnoIDA==
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <mSBTc8Bl5YIXe7LSX_fCNUYhd0wjepa_XhF6uhtwzF7s5h9-AEGWbkfrPA58nn431SjAqTkWEzd7YJ5mC0M7aZf-NmS5eDTN8LKEGQOFGcY=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKg+cK3ZjPCjcDK8v5qFA=uCHD7gcR8ymroXBFicU5jzY8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6nZ-SkxvJLrOCOIdUtLOsdnl94DoX_NHY0uwZ7sw78t24FQ33QJlJU95W7Sk1ja5EFic5a3yql14MLmSAYFZvLGBS4lDUJfr8ut9hdB7GD4=@protonmail.com>
 <CAJowKg+cK3ZjPCjcDK8v5qFA=uCHD7gcR8ymroXBFicU5jzY8Q@mail.gmail.com>
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>,
 Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:48:46 -0000

Good morning Erik,

> hey, i read that whole thing, but i'm confused as to why it's necessary
>
> seems like N of N participants can pre-sign an on-chain transfer of funds=
 for each participant to a new address that consists of (N-1) or (N-1) part=
icipants, of which each portion of the signature is encrypted for the same =
(N-1) participants
>
> then any (N-1) subset of participants can collude publish that transactio=
n at any time to remove any other member from=C2=A0the pool
>
> all of the set up=C2=A0 (dkg for N-1), and transfer (encryption of partia=
l sigs) is done offchain, and online with the participants=C2=A0that are on=
line


As I understand your counterproposal, it would require publishing one trans=
action per evicted participant.
In addition, each participant has to store `N!` possible orderings in which=
 participants can be evicted, as you cannot predict the future and cannot p=
redict which partiicpants will go offline first.

Finally, please see also the other thread on lightning-dev: https://lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2022-February/003479.html
In this thread, I point out that if we ever use channel factories, it would=
 be best if we treat each channel as a 2-of-2 that participates in an overa=
ll N-of-N (i.e. the N in the outer channel factory is composed of 2-of-2).
For example, instead of the channel factory being signed by participants `A=
`, `B`, `C`, `D`, instead the channel factory is signed by `AB`, `AC`, `AD`=
, `BC`, `BD`, `CD`, so that if e.g. participant B needs to be evicted, we c=
an evict the signers `AB`, `BC`, and `BD`.
This means that for the channel factory case, already the number of "partic=
ipants" is quadratic on the number of *actual* participants, which greatly =
increases the number of transactions that need to be evicted in one-evictio=
n-at-a-time schemes (which is how I understand your proposal) as well as in=
creasing the `N!` number of signatures that need to be exchanged during set=
up.


But yes, certainly that can work, just as pre-signed transactions can be us=
ed instead of `OP_CTV` or pretty much any non-`OP_CHECKMULTISIG` opcode, xr=
ef Smart Contracts Unchained.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj