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
|
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0435BC000E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:32:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E7C40380
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:32:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 7zaJJDOIUR0v
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:32:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com (mail-pg1-x533.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA19E401B6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:32:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id f5so10367370pgv.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 05 Jul 2021 16:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id
:references:cc:in-reply-to:to;
bh=RtKEc9yiPDAU9ZO3eEsPJD2Wv49kpIKlhR3EADcryXs=;
b=SFfAxOKtzOGROc1f/GfJstv1ze/tljdG3gOe978dA/xtnAL0KK6X4wLy0zXCktym+7
pnEWFEQuJ4SpikTqf2Wk4VvrGh/dSiqHcG/44MD9r3UUHnzN709E66b0RdBnCS8YVw4m
4fuZsyBQh8LEPFaccEw4Bwk8Vg+Ub91zRiIDJedKQ7HK4KKtxhiMB/TVpqD65nkEYDtI
2GJ5okCgHD1aHArGq4bqMG2GJaesPBLnhJ/ofGjuMO5OQmqkyGtV072gJQjDQw/bWMD7
JbMfnMQ5mjiEGF665iC1lS1BfhMYNYlZCHTroTfZK6G53JPyezkNg/4jSmEJ1dj/qG8k
rPmw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version
:subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to;
bh=RtKEc9yiPDAU9ZO3eEsPJD2Wv49kpIKlhR3EADcryXs=;
b=r22gXclpGONYaCFM0v+8sdcfyuABtTV87tkLYNe8MXwrfKMwINxJ+Z2WsWvLcm5W4j
iUu6DC/CMcy7eacrbR4eh4W2hYAz4axipZW6DYyfLQ0lLPAR65yQyG23qr11as19txeP
AvigZ2MYvZz3noyS2TlCoZVOyKMQC7XcSYwCHDB1Mbmqv/B0r7haaTzLKjOR10ZyENe5
msX5Q2boOEDYFh3EGuBglc9LMEu6WRhSJm6S7pOhky5fW+kex3og5vDAqL31ovtq3efX
1tr+wR5bWJ9p9+/gbjk2GB4JND9mNlhGg98bPIte0vIhaF6AhB1BEM7QQ4rE+Akhun7K
4qrg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5312lqLhy6LvIEQHtKNZ+JI8jA0w+hG3RLR7JvG0SUDhDV+bdnMv
ADIVx3T5pFaSPbjzy+b55gSORQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwSb8dX7jZVqt6HwJOubtgIW4T+SUPnn2Hg1rjdX4VymAVC57LopnLy+9VCP1VfjYvQEtrIvg==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:824a:0:b029:2ec:89ee:e798 with SMTP id
e10-20020aa7824a0000b02902ec89eee798mr17375228pfn.12.1625527925173;
Mon, 05 Jul 2021 16:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2601:600:9c00:1d0::7844])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w2sm12095102pjq.5.2021.07.05.16.32.04
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
Mon, 05 Jul 2021 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 16:32:04 -0700
Message-Id: <F79C4763-619D-42B9-92C8-555AC128832E@voskuil.org>
References: <cLK-RFlIdmwOvuKag-cOImIVCltq97EWfT-mFpPFa5wJfbAgptlKFhmgt4WQNw2pYVt-sGCCCTtHi1s0Vdwwimun_fUdvrDeOOPnlFjYDdA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cLK-RFlIdmwOvuKag-cOImIVCltq97EWfT-mFpPFa5wJfbAgptlKFhmgt4WQNw2pYVt-sGCCCTtHi1s0Vdwwimun_fUdvrDeOOPnlFjYDdA=@protonmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18F72)
Cc: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proof of reserves - recording
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: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 23:32:07 -0000
If only one could prove that he won=E2=80=99t get into a boating accident.
e
> On Jul 5, 2021, at 16:26, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linu=
xfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFGood morning Billy,
>=20
>> I wonder if there would be some way to include the ability to prove balan=
ces held on the lightning network, but I suspect that isn't generally possib=
le.=20
>=20
> Thinking about this in terms of economic logic:
>=20
> Every channel is anchored onchain, and that anchor (the funding txout) is p=
roof of the existence, and size, of the channel.
>=20
> The two participants in the channel can sign a plaintext containing their n=
ode pubkeys and how much each owns.
> One of the participants should provably be the custodian.
>=20
> * If the counterparty is a true third party, it has no incentive to lie ab=
out its money.
> * Especially if the counterparty is *another* custodian who wants proof-o=
f-reserves, it has every incentive to overreport, but then the first party w=
ill refuse to sign.
> It has a disincentive to underreport, and would itself refuse to sign a=
dishonest report that assigns more funds to the first party.
> The only case that would be acceptable to both custodians would be to h=
onestly report their holdings in the Lightning channel.
> * If the counterparty is a sockpuppet of the custodian, then the entire ch=
annel is owned by the custodian and it would be fairly dumb of he custodian t=
o claim to have less funds than the entire channel.
>=20
> Perhaps a more practical problem is that Lightning channel states change f=
airly quickly, and there are possible race conditions, due to network latenc=
y (remember, both nodes need to sign, meaning both of them need to communica=
te with each other, thus hit by network latency and other race conditions) w=
here a custodian Lightning node is unable to "freeze" a snapshot of its curr=
ent state and make an atomic proof-of-reserves of *all* channels.
>=20
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
