path: root/3c/f7754862da0f2a10a7af48c0ec55ac5ba22b40

Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0919C002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 20 Aug 2022 03:04:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E6E606AA
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 20 Aug 2022 03:04:03 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org A7E6E606AA
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=uLcRhhK5
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
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 WcLX8Avk3wLr
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 20 Aug 2022 03:04:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 5ABDA6064D
Received: from mail-4319.protonmail.ch (mail-4319.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.19])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ABDA6064D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 20 Aug 2022 03:04:02 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 03:03:52 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
 s=protonmail3; t=1660964639; x=1661223839;
 bh=LILD4t94Sy6MdRa9ZhDKBuQPUGq/7NLUOyTHJJ4SbDI=;
 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=uLcRhhK5Zc7M5Iy5Smv5LkMVDpqOpIN4eNPzoVhJzyoH6+InTDfOfpk9KRylELj0T
 Yi7EvpeMloBAU0IEs2oNqN8154QsqkCYvzQUiMj69e8SLktXB3P+b3vscdk4CZSEQw
 FhzPLedmadzSntqiTdt/52tpT1XhUh9t5WANemObRmDMVg76f+omVfnAwIV4+/wLcy
 enlyoeV8B0mINRdIMfvzV5BfD6cQ38mYYhODiZJFdbodPpa83HwPg/bUr/Y04MrxxK
 TT6Ew7TbQVIBn/utGllUO7iWvoJ+CXZfu7HR2pRe0AumHHY57oufwQwa2Nel3OUieH
 oJwSxAEVTeR8g==
To: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <h7uL5jH1cnGVVpA7k_F0O7aHQALl2ICqAlISd2gdvf3XKQiSjTFlEvIqqysvyhmQ3O52HbVoox2WZYTyjZDaWfTdvRx3Ef4YJVqty5MEaXI=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB3F3DvMMjfV0eS4DvEzXdKLNa+549-ctLNHON8JQBzxWjKD-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPfvXfLvYbKWSWatkunwdcOYN_YTCayr=B_Rm90R+1nUW_zFCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB3F3DvMMjfV0eS4DvEzXdKLNa+549-ctLNHON8JQBzxWjKD-A@mail.gmail.com>
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] More uses 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: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 03:04:04 -0000


Good morning Greg,


> Hi James,
> Could you elaborate on a L2 contract where speedy
> settlement of the "first part" can be done, while having the rest
> take their time? I'm more thinking about time-out based protocols.
>=20
> Naturally my mind drifts to LN, where getting the proper commitment
> transaction confirmed in a timely fashion is required to get the proper
> balances back. The one hitch is that for HTLCs you still need speedy
> resolution otherwise theft can occur. And given today's "layered
> commitment" style transaction where HTLCs are decoupled from
> the balance output timeouts, I'm not sure this can save much.

As I understand it, layered commitments can be modified to use `OP_CTV`, wh=
ich would be slightly smaller (need only to reveal a 32-byte `OP_CTV` hash =
on the witness instead of a 64-byte Taproot signature, or 73-byte classical=
 pre-Taproot ECDSA signature), and is in fact precisely an example of the s=
peedy settlement style.

> CTV style commitments have popped up in a couple places in my
> work on eltoo(emulated via APO sig-in-script), but mostly in the
> context of reducing interactivity in protocols, not in byte savings per s=
e.

In many offchain cases, all channel participants would agree to some pre-de=
termined set of UTXOs, which would be implemented as a transaction spending=
 some single UTXO and outputting the pre-determined set of UTXOs.

The single UTXO can be an n-of-n of all participants, so that all agree by =
contributing their signatures:

* Assuming Taproot, the output address itself is 33 bytes (x4 weight).
* The n-of-n multisignature is 64 witness bytes (x1 weight).=20

Alternatly the single UTXO can be a P2WSH that reveals an `OP_CTV`:

* The P2WSH is 33 bytes (x4 weight) --- no savings here.
* The revelation of the `<hash> OP_CTV` is 33 witness bytes (x1 weight).

Thus, as I understand it, `OP_CTV` can (almost?) always translate to a smal=
l weight reduction for such "everyone agrees to this set of UTXOs" for all =
offchain protocols that would require it.


Regards,
ZmnSCPxj