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
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66C5A3DC4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 06:04:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (cerulean.erisian.com.au [139.162.42.226])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAF7DA8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 06:04:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au)
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.89 #1 (Debian))
id 1gp5SM-0008NE-F0; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 16:04:12 +1000
Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 16:04:05 +1000
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 16:04:05 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20190131060405.e7hefirxcars4bpu@erisian.com.au>
References: <9F8C0789-48E9-448A-A239-DB4AFB902A00@xbt.hk>
<8z5NQkaOUo9z-wdBphQtZrxIf7OCtVQFvK3neMWvcRsngld5XJs-vt7CLuY46ZOp_pX8gEd92pMdkEkp8CUOMH9lUTw5ocWsbDPiaKdSa2I=@protonmail.com>
<34B38940-524D-42B9-8A67-6A62DCE04665@xbt.hk>
<KFCfNAmHhRvsDJs70UW3l4ssqBtdBrb8gYP5A3cN2hsTPrXVg7f5Yrt2LOo5V0QdAhhoooc3lllXxiiXSVt_28obYBl_XKAgEQkGg1kOj8I=@protonmail.com>
<CAABEECD-2B12-4852-A440-58809EB6BF56@xbt.hk>
<B2h-WuZWvKKnCqz_qvciHFHf16SgY_63GAF_Y5KbsiJ_wRRoZMw-LBT6Beob9oYOzm9TMaeewJhZXqvPr7TizXOLBoOsOiKPQDyax4aefGY=@protonmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B2h-WuZWvKKnCqz_qvciHFHf16SgY_63GAF_Y5KbsiJ_wRRoZMw-LBT6Beob9oYOzm9TMaeewJhZXqvPr7TizXOLBoOsOiKPQDyax4aefGY=@protonmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Score-int: -18
X-Spam-Bar: -
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:00:54 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer NOINPUT with output tagging
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 06:04:16 -0000
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:47:38AM +0000, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> A boutique protocol would reduce the number of existing onchain wallets that could be integrated in such UI.
Seems like PSBT would be a sufficient protocol:
0) lightning node generates a PSBT for a new channel,
with no inputs and a single output of the 2-of-2 address
1) wallet funds the PSBT but doesn't sign it, adding a change address
if necessary, and could combine with other tx's bustapay style
2) lightning determines txid from PSBT, and creates update/settlement
tx's for funding tx so funds can be recovered
3) wallet signs and publishes the PSBT
4) lightning sees tx on chain and channel is open
That's a bit more convoluted than "(0) lightning generates an address and
value, and creates NOINPUT update/settlement tx's for that address/value;
(1) wallet funds address to exactly that value; (2) lightning monitors
blockchain for payment to that address" of course.
But it avoids letting users get into the habit of passing NOINPUT
addresses around, or the risk of a user typo'ing the value and losing
money immediately, and it has the benefit that the wallet can tweak the
value if (eg) that avoids a change address or enhances privacy (iirc,
c-lightning tweaks payment values for that reason). If the channel's
closed cooperatively, it also avoids ever needing to publish a NOINPUT
sig (or NOINPUT tagged output).
Does that seem a fair trade off?
Cheers,
aj
|
