1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100DEC0051
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 4 Oct 2020 14:25:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E6E84C44
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 4 Oct 2020 14:25:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id vByCp26TpUY5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 4 Oct 2020 14:25:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail4.protonmail.ch (mail4.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27])
by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E6BE844C9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 4 Oct 2020 14:25:11 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2020 14:24:59 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1601821508;
bh=vK/pFzpy1/bjlqkyooWJu7mR5Hsde6RsyC0tFUYs8V8=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=Z+I0dKNXG4B798XRVkeflDRagFgznqtjhrV0Mk0l9axynv7Ymwnqk7ZDZKHvcLE6X
6K+VwMsJk50GKir0ey2jDju0M62BHeiDAYHd1/4df8GxA5V1F/FbJfUPhmYqs7InuX
KUMC9hVTfS14ROVXwC7CtODGmZ2PvbX+EOYu4Ukw=
To: Thomas Hartman <thomashartman1@gmail.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <yQfhDGq-Vmm1rL8VxIOH6oEW56zP-kxTxmp_9045twVFffy3VEoGalbOCeakLru26mmtYkAiOi4k4MP5onFEInwPgh1LI_Ci1EMjNsnIreg=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHAXnDW717KRhW=H1siy75ynDdxKiYP5FgXbQHeGwxN_idJzTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <976903d1529adef2aff8839290a91f2c.squirrel@giyzk7o6dcunb2ry.onion>
<p2JoErfteahZxNW_vNGpmBi7TLganHpJLb_JM0vC_EBPC1fQeqnb_XD5TB1HH5nKADYTVxek6JGYgFZcsEoekGDH0I5hSH2KDZ9ZpkSXK0U=@protonmail.com>
<CAHAXnDW717KRhW=H1siy75ynDdxKiYP5FgXbQHeGwxN_idJzTA@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>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A thought experiment on bitcoin for payroll
privacy
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: Sun, 04 Oct 2020 14:25:14 -0000
Good morning Thomas,
> "big to-network channel"
>
> nit: should this be "big from-network channel" ?
As Lightning Network channels are bidirectional, it would be more properly =
"to/from-network", but that is cumbersome.
"to-network" is shorter by two characters than "from-network", and would be=
true as well (since the channel is bidirectional, it is both a "to-network=
" and "from-network" channel), thus preferred.
>
> thanks for this explanation.
You are welcome.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 11:45 PM ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > Good Morning Mr. Lee,
> >
> > > I cannot front up funds of my own to give
> > > them inbound balance because it would consume all of my treasury to l=
ock
> > > up funds.
> >
> > This is not a reasonable assumption!
> > Suppose you have a new hire that you have agreed to pay 0.042BTC every =
2 weeks.
> > On the first payday of the new hire, you have to have at least 0.042BTC=
in your treasury, somehow.
> > If not, you are unable to pay the new hire, full stop, and you are doom=
ed to bankruptcy and your problems will disappear soon once your cut-throat=
new hire cuts your throat for not paying her or him.
> > If you do have at least 0.042BTC in your treasury, you can make the cha=
nnel with the new hire and pay the salary via the new channel.
> > At every payday, you need to have at least the salary of your entire em=
ployee base available, otherwise you would be unable to pay at least some o=
f your employees and you will quickly find yourself with your throat cut.
> > Now, let us talk about topology.
> > Let us reduce this to a pointless topology that is the worst possible t=
opology for Lightning usage, and show that by golly, Lightning will still w=
ork.
> > Suppose your company only has this one big channel with the network.
> > Let us reduce your company to only having this single new hire throat-c=
utter (we will show later that without loss of generality this will still w=
ork even if you have thousands of throat-cutters internationally).
> > Now, as mentioned, on the first payday of your throat-cutter, you have =
to have at least the 0.042 salary you promised.
> > If you have been receiving payments for your throat-cutting business on=
the big channel, that means the 0.042 BTC is in that single big channel.
> > You can then use an offchain-to-onchain swap service like Boltz or Loop=
and put the money onchain.
> > Then you can create the new channel to your new hire and pay the promis=
ed salary to the throat-cutter.
> > Now, you have no more funds in either of your channels, the to-network =
big channel, and the to-employee channel.
> > So you are not locking up any of your funds, only the funds of your emp=
loyee.
> > Now, as your business operates, you will receive money in your to-netwo=
rk big channel.
> > The rate at which you receive money for services rendered has to be lar=
ger than 0.042/2weeks on average, otherwise you are not earning enough to p=
ay your throat-cutter by the time of the next payday (much less your other =
operating expenses, such as knife-sharpening, corpse disposal, dealing with=
the families of the deceased, etc.).
> > If you are not earning at a high enough rate to pay your employee by th=
e next payday, your employee will not be paid and will solve your problems =
by cutting your throat.
> > But what that means is that the employee salary of the previous payday =
is not locked, either!
> > Because you are receiving funds on your big to-network channel continuo=
usly, the employee can now spend the funds "locked" in the to-employee chan=
nel, sending out to the rest of the network.
> > This uses up the money you have been earning and moving the funds to th=
e to-employee channel, but if you are running a lucrative business, that is=
perfectly fine, since you should, by the next payday, have earned enough, =
and then some, to pay the employee on the next payday.
> > Of course there will be times when business is a little slow and you ge=
t less than 0.042/2weeks.
> > In that case, a wise business manager will reserve some funds for a rai=
ny day when business is a little slow, meaning you will still have some fun=
ds you can put into your to-network big channel for other expenses, even as=
your employee uses capacity there to actually spend their salary.
> > It all balances out.
> > You only need to keep enough in your channels to cover your continuous =
operational expenses, and employee salaries are operational expenses.
> > Suppose you now want to hire another throat-cutter.
> > You would only do that if business is booming, or in other words, if yo=
u have accumulated enough money in your treasury to justify hiring yet anot=
her employee.
> > By induction, this will work regardless if you have 1 employee, or 1 mi=
llion.
> > Regards,
> > ZmnSCPxj
> >
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|