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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2497C016E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:23:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D1125D1D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:23:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id Wr0+6+qyC4aH
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:23:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40138.protonmail.ch (mail-40138.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.138])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DD4225CF1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:23:05 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:23:01 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1592284982;
bh=wNadIlQig2B2zC/J6FHqJ4k9Xckq8x4cfjKqKATJQ5M=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=jZ2rAhJ30uwEZTaEuUqqoBZxzC+quKIM1BS7u7T/cjTbGf4P1OytTrJ2EtIeAN1xL
E3UA3kdFhagRLz2o9H8yt0EIvNjMJCCOIW6gikuHos8KgO6q480MF4w/d722Ma9mME
XxZ2PqhKOwIIi/GmvtBQBiga4PvqAREIHyw+5aSw=
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <_VqB84inr1oM8O9n4r1BZ_t7BPRFaJQ3ifZqnsLwFKNlQAKtPdwUFK825Wja0PTyllzLERlmiWWMLSiamYR83d7MXH3ERCON-u-IkH5R5XA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7BPgx65Eh5HE5wLIqeG9G-bdsxxkDJJIzcyOJvS6_FIxXfA10sbFe5dfwQDNiEOExZ9Y72lHq88lKzcBRIFnYGFY5I2vwk6Dg7BcCMjmS2Y=@protonmail.com>
References: <CALZpt+FqAWCAqCLF2HsajL84sOvst_X9_34bb_tvUxLFw=HTAA@mail.gmail.com>
<7cWQJzkWNEZCI2fYYrJCFxrmGfDGFAtsOyGpXRmB-g4Qhm2jzhyxLtuOIpJAr2CMJjAjri12lmR-h96ev3NWqaTgDtc_NN0yhyVxuIlBuzU=@protonmail.com>
<CALZpt+EsACbq1QM9MFkC63_gDXW0vHfeTjXc7C9r4+2-1WKAJw@mail.gmail.com>
<m-yAKsQ52s-bYOrtEXVwETAcJ8sSbJt0k9WDN1ueidJ01IaEHRJtq9Odffmz_2utLxPfmI418x58aFc3vKBpOD2FKqgeCUAn1mvI1OSyGRY=@protonmail.com>
<7BPgx65Eh5HE5wLIqeG9G-bdsxxkDJJIzcyOJvS6_FIxXfA10sbFe5dfwQDNiEOExZ9Y72lHq88lKzcBRIFnYGFY5I2vwk6Dg7BcCMjmS2Y=@protonmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CoinPool,
exploring generic payment pools for Fun and Privacy
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: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:23:08 -0000
Good morning Antoine, Gleb, and list,
In some ways, CoinPool is really part of a swarm of ideas:
* CoinPool
* Multiparticipant (N > 2) channels
* Channel factories
* Nodelets
What CoinPool and multiparticipant channels buy us is better flexibility wi=
th forwarding.
For example, if we compare a multiparty channel to a channel factory, suppo=
se there exists three entities A, B, and C in the multiparty construction.
In a channel factory, each entity has to decide how much of its liquidity t=
o tie up in a channel with a specific other peer in the multiparty construc=
tion.
This limits the practical payment forwarding when integrated into the Light=
ning Network.
In a CoinPool, any of the entities can forward to any of the other entities=
, without tying their liquidity to a channel specifically with those entiti=
es.
However, in a CoinPool, once any of the entities goes offline, the entire C=
oinPool can no longer update.
This is in contrast with channel factories, where, if entity C goes offline=
, the channel between A and B remains useable for forwarding.
In other words, channel factories degrade gracefully.
Further, we already have a decent solution for liquidity redistribution: JI=
T Routing by Rene Pickhardt.
Thus the liquidity issue with channel factories are somewhat mitigated (and=
if all participants are online, they also have the option of redistributin=
g channel funds *inside* the factory as well, not just JIT routing), while =
gaining graceful degradation of the factory.
Another is that pathfinding algorithms work best if graph edges are edges a=
nd not in fact some kind of twisted multi-edge that connects more than two =
nodes together.
On the other hand, the participants of a CoinPool could create a "virtual n=
ode" that is a MuSig of their individual keys, and report that as the "real=
" node on LN gossip (each of them pretending to have a large channel with t=
hat virtual node), so that the rest of the network only sees edges that lin=
k two nodes (and existing pathfinding algos still work seamlessly, never re=
alizing that this node is actually a virtual node that represents a CoinPoo=
l).
This is basically them creating a sort of Nodelet node, which other nodes c=
annot make channels to, and which uses channels with the Nodelet node as pr=
oxies for the CoinPool as a whole.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
