Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 00:53:58 +0000
To: "raymo@riseup.net" <raymo@riseup.net>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <6leV9mViysrSOipJqrCM3wbqBOMO2gWI3BuEn0VKmaDf7GpawWyUIWLu-ddypMri7YeVmw94HNSaQYYp8fIkjZ0S3OtFTPQa6h9pkLprKDI=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <bea8122aea550f1141170829aac252af@riseup.net>
References: <bea8122aea550f1141170829aac252af@riseup.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Boost Bitcoin circulation,
	Million Transactions Per Second with stronger privacy
Precedence: list

Good morning Raymo,

> Hi,
> I have a proposal for improve Bitcoin TPS and privacy, here is the post.
> https://raymo-49157.medium.com/time-to-boost-bitcoin-circulation-million-=
transactions-per-second-and-privacy-1eef8568d180
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D5344020.0
> Can you please read it and share your idea about it.


Guarantee Transactions (GT) being higher-fee is ***not*** assured.

Feerates are always bumpable --- the sender of a transaction only needs to =
directly contact a miner and offer a fee to take a specific transaction on =
the next block proposal, conditional on the transaction *actually* getting =
into a block.
Such "side fees" are always possible.
Indeed, the in-transaction fees are "just" a way to anonymously and atomica=
lly make that fee offer to miners --- but miners and issuers can always com=
municate directly without using Bitcoin transaction to arrange a higher fee=
 for a fraudulent Main Transaction (MT).

because of this, you should really treat all unconfirmed transactions --- i=
ncluding MTs and GTs --- as potentially replaceable, i.e. RBFable.
There is no such thing as "RBF disabled", all transactions are inherently R=
BF-able due to side fees --- it is simply a matter of anonymity, atomicity,=
 and ease-of-use.

---

Every offchain protocol needs *the receiver* as a signatory to any unconfir=
med transaction.

Or more strongly, the receiver **must** be a signatory --- the receiver can=
not trust an unconfirmed transaction where the spent UTXO has an alternate =
branch that does *not* have the receiver as a signatory.

See: https://zmnscpxj.github.io/offchain/safety.html

Thus, all safe offchain schemes need to use an n-of-n signing set.

The smallest n-of-n that is still useful is 2-of-2, where one participant i=
s a sender and the other is a receiver.
(1-of-1 is not useful since there is no possible receiver who can sign).

This requires Bitcoin to splinter into lots of 2-of-2 funds, each one a sov=
ereign sub-money (that is *eventually* convertible to Bitcoin), each one a =
cryptocurrency system in its own right.
However, it so happens that we have a mechanism for transferring value acro=
ss multiple cryptocurrency systems: the HTLC.

2-of-2 is also the most stable.
This is because *all* signatories of an n-of-n cryptocurrency system need t=
o be online at the same time in order for *any* of them to use the funds in=
 the system.
If any one of them is offline, then the system is unusable.
With 2 participants, there is some probability that one of them is offline =
and the individual 2-of-2 system is unusable.
With 3 participants, the probability is higher (there are more participants=
 that can be offline).
With 4 participants, higher still.

Thus, the most stable is to split Bitcoin into lots of little 2-of-2 system=
s, and use HTLCs to transfer funds across the little 2-of-2 systems.

Thus, Lightning Network, which splits Bitcoin into lots of little 2-of-2 cr=
yptocurrency systems (channels), and uses HTLCs to atomically transfer valu=
e across them (routing).


Of course, having larger n is better as we need to splinter Bitcoin into fe=
wer funds with larger participant sets.
And we can mitigate the offline-problem by using a two-layer system: we hav=
e a n-of-n system (n > 2) that itself splits into multiple smaller 2-of-2 s=
ystems.
That way, the Bitcoin layer is split into fewer UTXOs, reducing blockchain =
resource consumption further.

Thus, Channel Factories hosting Lightning Channels.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj