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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24FDF941
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 22 Dec 2018 14:25:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch (mail-40133.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.133])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B8117C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 22 Dec 2018 14:25:26 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 14:25:16 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1545488724;
bh=YdzfmBI0gswA1F2HoY8B+Bnc8n1YWbzz9Qgu0r67xXA=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=ms/54561ScRsb10EEasUburLK7isKLAz0LmjaPAhq4upNZBe1NcqYZxusUkLFVk3v
K4WuN+6VJ9J0VIWXeFd9MlST3p6JyXHy23+2qAC3g9oYLQUr6tsc/MrhvDVzFxwbO7
P0fJAROTRWvoZ8vSkFzJzaSIXR28blkq42SGEfP4=
To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <KFCfNAmHhRvsDJs70UW3l4ssqBtdBrb8gYP5A3cN2hsTPrXVg7f5Yrt2LOo5V0QdAhhoooc3lllXxiiXSVt_28obYBl_XKAgEQkGg1kOj8I=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <34B38940-524D-42B9-8A67-6A62DCE04665@xbt.hk>
References: <9F8C0789-48E9-448A-A239-DB4AFB902A00@xbt.hk>
<8z5NQkaOUo9z-wdBphQtZrxIf7OCtVQFvK3neMWvcRsngld5XJs-vt7CLuY46ZOp_pX8gEd92pMdkEkp8CUOMH9lUTw5ocWsbDPiaKdSa2I=@protonmail.com>
<34B38940-524D-42B9-8A67-6A62DCE04665@xbt.hk>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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: Sun, 23 Dec 2018 18:43:54 +0000
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 14:25:27 -0000
Good morning Johnson,
> Generally speaking, I think walletless protocol is needed only when you w=
ant to rely a third party to open a offchain smart contract. It could be co=
inswap, eltoo, or anything similar.
I think a third party would be pointless in general, but then I am strongly=
against custodiality.
The idea is that you have some kind of hardware wallet or similar "somewhat=
cold" storage *that you control yourself*, and crate channels for your hot=
offchain Lightning wallet, without adding more transactions from your some=
what-cold storage to your hot offchain Lightning wallet on the blockchain.
Then you could feed a set of addresses to the hot offchain wallet (addresse=
s your somewhat-cold storage controls) so that when channels are closed, th=
e funds go to your somwhat-cold storage.
I also doubt that any custodial service would want to mess around with dedu=
cting funds from what the user input as the desired payment. I have not se=
en a custodial service that does so (this is not a scientific study; I rare=
ly use custodial services); custodial services will deduct more from your b=
alance than what you send, but will not modify what you send, and will prev=
ent you from sending more than your balance minus the fees they charge for =
sending onchain.
Even today, custodial services deducting from your sent value (rather than =
the balance remaining after you send) would be problematic when interacting=
with merchants (or their payment processors) accepting onchain payments; t=
he merchant would refuse to service a lower value than what it charges and =
it may be very technically difficult to recover such funds from the merchan=
t.
I expect such a custodial service would quickly lose users, but the world s=
urprises me often.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
