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
116
117
118
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472DFC07FF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 30 Mar 2020 01:25:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 319B0880CA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 30 Mar 2020 01:25:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id Mpk0UWoKdTjX
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 30 Mar 2020 01:25:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.132])
by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 537B9880C7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 30 Mar 2020 01:25:44 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 01:25:36 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1585531541;
bh=II6pCCWQUVYNX8iNuEVDsSjegBBor0FfUiFxyl3qULI=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=vs+5I/4LkyfoXW2rM8lAhocDriPXclT4wds/xyaJwtaRav6k8NfcE9SnJMwm683fD
Y++olt+l6pvDzAB5elo+2b5c0FL+x2KJfs1GUSPPd0G/2rqsY6667qMfnJxlvR6VXj
HQtNbs1NdrDM831zScKgcxUUK65HZTLTybXyBUsQ=
To: Ruben Somsen <rsomsen@gmail.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <70epI8yeOu69uXQfxbyWEfrH7hYLzsx9CDIgA9gL_GlaqDEmshtP4Ogf6Dl7GH408GTPDveir1MKy1euEcPbOhJEtzjLbV9m506quXhnKOg=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPv7Tjb5a5RbXH802m8qHoUKw-5rZV6nOw01z9+hx4yTJYV3Cw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJvkSseW9OZ50yQiS7e0zt9tQt4v9aoikgGs_54_kMN-ORkQgw@mail.gmail.com>
<20200327171017.GM28113@mcelrath.org>
<6SFA-3YOsuEl4D3N5eA5G6q1B6ROWHmNefjCC5cRPpHg6iu9PVdG21PKjV28IMYXY_tOcmrSB60tnQRgm4pcHXB_MxOPaa9zZIbBeo0aHS4=@protonmail.com>
<CAPv7TjYs8j=rKWPVzfFbtznjFQfpKTBGr4AnCXrDcU64Cb8S9Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPv7Tjb5a5RbXH802m8qHoUKw-5rZV6nOw01z9+hx4yTJYV3Cw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Tom Trevethan <tom@commerceblock.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Statechain implementations
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: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 01:25:46 -0000
Good morning Ruben,
> Hi ZmnSCPxj,
>
> > the current owner can ask the statechain entity to sign an alternative =
to the first stage, with 0 relative locktime
>
> Unless I am misunderstanding something, this seems to run into the proble=
m that the original first stage transaction is already out there (and its r=
elative timelock started ticking). There is no mechanism ensuring that the =
new tx will have precedence. And even if it did work, I doubt it's cleaner =
than doing a cooperative peg-out that simultaneously happens to peg back in=
, creating a brand new statechain UTXO with no history.
If:
* You are sure the old first stage tx has > 0 relative locktime.
* The replacement tx (which replaces the old first stage) has a 0 relative =
locktime.
* The replacement tx redirects the funds to a new funding output for a (l=
ogically continuous, onchain new) statechain.
Then the replacement tx, having a smaller relative locktime than the old fi=
rst stage, has precedence.
Indeed, having a *smaller* relative locktime is exactly the mechanism Decke=
r-Wattenhofer uses.
So this is the state, with the kickoff having just been confirmed onchain:
***blockchain***
[funding tx]->[kickoff tx]-+
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _
offchain |
+->[[ 7] stage]->[[ 0] stage]->[[14] stag=
e]-> state outputs
Since the first stage is still "ticking" it is not yet confirmable onchain.
You ask the statechain to create an alternative, 0-relative-locktime, re-fu=
nding tx, and create a new mechanism:
***blockchain***
[funding tx]->[kickoff tx]-+
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _
offchain |
+->[[ 7] stage]->[[ 0] stage]->[[14] stag=
e]-> state outputs
(OR)
|
+->[[ 0] funding tx]->[kickoff tx]->[[14]=
stage]->[[14] stage]->[[14] stage]->state outputs
Because it has a time advantage, this new re-funding tx has higher priority=
(and is the same mechanism Decker-Wattenhofer has anyway).
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
