Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 394B4C0032 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:45:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104CE41BF0 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:45:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 104CE41BF0 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=HkPINsm1 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 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 AE0TUpHvzA1h for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:45:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-4325.protonmail.ch (mail-4325.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.25]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 862A341BCD for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:45:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 862A341BCD DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1695109506; x=1695368706; bh=u/XSaPOj6/R6B5cdQf14F0YnguJBrHDjCzeGd3/ZMNo=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=HkPINsm1LpLCUv6qsh7bsoFtTIl3Iw0t+Yr6Fws5jzr2qpYuSceq1ff4PAQBxXpbn 1VFsgO2uynkMRXHeVa1WQwX1fOI9xMa18QKWxAxekMPpiMNq4k9q9ZDVB35GonTkbn DPrXD1aNBhKo9tsbuMTvCpSZHo5J83C0UodRqJUfqOaj6e2Vxk7aWE0IHU4AX9sQ0X vaSUGCGmP4ZanLQO0wvaIBhftFOadMXxeuPaE1D7JQKDYvuIvfYNxmzoQJLFD3ptOz oRQhoy6udnC2laKRDGtIci5NqXEdpfZMUK1vspThgko1BUHq/co0uH3y/6yuv70G2V Fskz1GO13KJHA== Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:44:48 +0000 To: Erik Aronesty From: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , lightning-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Lightning With Simple Covenants 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: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:45:11 -0000 Good morning Erik, > > replacing CTV usage with Musig2 >=20 >=20 > this changes the trust model to a federated one vs trustless and also inc= reases the on-chain footprint of failure, correct? As I understand it, no. MuSig and MuSig2 are n-of-n signing algorithms. The implied usage is that all entities `A_i` for all `i` and `B` dedicated = LN node are in the n-of-n set. The argument that 2-of-2 channels are non-custodial and trust-minimized ext= ends to n-of-n for all n. Regards, ZmnSCPxj