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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5523C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:36:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FFE960AF2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:36:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id hPo6u_s38IQK
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:36:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-40140.protonmail.ch (mail-40140.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.140])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4834160011
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:36:56 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:36:48 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1650865013;
bh=AQ2fZoSbcm0lvnAj6ozmJG8VTcLREKnJ57kMOQ/rGqw=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:
References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:
Feedback-ID:Message-ID;
b=0M8c9fBsT3fONRHONwoAOfbAlE8nwTTrU89xjKGpPyFG/sDH4ejEM9XT7oMhCAszS
4n40jqwRNq7zEJ1zxHhk5mThGETsfIU5/Ox4YHss0goBcSdMNOROhmfGTgDnklaWJ/
dVaZEVUAyNmed/BZWm58sWrH0qMlBS7TrZ/lNcoKxCaB3ISpQrdtes6n+p0Xy/5Ozl
aG02JEdKaSVNwomN1yW/4soa2vOtNgC+pGZ54w2ZPGOoX3a9Jg82CBXZU51R+YbNUE
m7lggHtEKV7ipDAJmKnAT3AGScl2xmwZWMLqpTEjlT+zYq/7W2IUkfKwsMwrltB9Y0
W+UJ5ENeHUWiQ==
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <tBEO_7gKqAlgiRpjC1OCLMBcLddK0ffNlbdU65VhXnXqZQiDCTDNOw8sfTXqNXZxVA8wA0uodTLvptt7Iy5O3D_6hkiVVfLegOrg9C1Snkg=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <B037C028-EB25-4197-A0F1-48838D1AD30F@petertodd.org>
References: <RyYBRY3MJP_0b2YkCEUFBdP8u1A_cGSEEkDbzKK9k-rkINZrBaOL70L96iHR11bJhmkhAzuN6uZ1X8PQgz2wa8Us3-2OpNa4RbhSSprw_WE=@protonmail.com>
<CALeFGL1=4PrA_ziTsoS9sUjGjfLr54AiMfM99uDV-Bau5Ab_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJ4-pEADrHf_YR5ZBfJW+eefKrp1iEj4wAi72UrwRSi9gaVP+w@mail.gmail.com>
<B037C028-EB25-4197-A0F1-48838D1AD30F@petertodd.org>
Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] User Resisted Soft Fork for CTV
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, 25 Apr 2022 05:36:57 -0000
Good morning Peter,
>
> On April 22, 2022 11:03:51 AM GMT+02:00, Zac Greenwood via bitcoin-dev bi=
tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit all
> > users. This means that every change must have well-defined and transpar=
ent
> > benefits. Personally I believe that the only additions to the protocol =
that
> > would still be acceptable are those that clearly benefit layer 2 soluti=
ons
> > such as LN and do not carry the dangerous potential of getting abused b=
y
> > freeloaders selling commercial services on top of =E2=80=9Cfree=
=E2=80=9D eternal storage on
> > the blockchain.
>
>
> To strengthen your point: benefiting "all users" can only be done by bene=
fiting layer 2 solutions in some way, because it's inevitable that the vast=
majority of users will use layer 2 because that's the only known way that =
Bitcoin can scale.
I would like to point out that CTV is usable in LN.
In particular, instead of hosting all outputs (remote, local, and all the H=
TLCs) directly on the commitment transaction, the commitment transaction in=
stead outputs to a CTV-guarded SCRIPT that defers the "real" outputs.
This is beneficial since a common cause of unilateral closes is that one of=
the HTLCs on the channel has timed out.
However, only *that* particular HTLC has to be exposed onchain *right now*,=
and the use of CTV allows only that failing HTLC, plus O(log N) other txes=
, to be published.
The CTV-tree can even be rearranged so that HTLCs with closer timeouts are =
nearer to the root of the CTV-tree.
This allows the rest of the unilateral close to be resolved later, if right=
now there is block space congestion (we only really need to deal with the =
sole HTLC that is timing out right now, the rest can be done later when blo=
ck space is less tight).
This is arguably minimal (unilateral closes are rare, though they *do* have=
massive effects on the network, since a single timed-out channel can, duri=
ng short-term block congestion, cause other channels to also time out, whic=
h worsen the block congestion and leading to cascades of channel closures).
So this objection seems, to me, at least mitigated: CTV *can* benefit layer=
2 users, which is why I switched from vaguely apathetic to CTV, to vaguely=
supportive of it.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
