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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0411FC000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:41:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8992826EA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:41:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id ujr4t0kXyVg3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:41:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4318.protonmail.ch (mail-4318.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.18])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5292826DE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:41:52 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:41:42 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1645270908;
bh=gLy7+kddxmgS/daFlpvsSligrfRpn+Xxg3Yetno5hc0=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:
References:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
Message-ID;
b=B0ZBQLt4WrrPe6RHcu6Dy0+1jX4bJz9RJJWkFRRxUoV9I1dIxmLpWOEgdd1BtiBCm
3Hit2PwD1z1nlmB93r0sXqDTVlGtoCCuyiiu1CXwQY0U6gBtQ/28E1D8furck6MKXG
tk6RkiiclzEhyoJARV9KvtzzPjnfI9spV3PSmeOZZCmts4XAYiEpIJt0htJm16mLMS
GRLUsDiBaeXPTgldbDP42W6xOPW3bpJdielyxVR2/DGLcEhnyFeF/5Qf2iOOxuRIJ4
qNwaz+TMz9bcv75CNht/Wqkd0eFg2BWAT7EUHukiKZqVBKLrtZ6I37hshlEyUC45vh
d8+eiVrcF+scA==
To: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <gcBcBwsL0ocO4fpTF1ZNkFTWGNhuPCHpbwjV5pzO4I2IR9WOfEEsQqL_i2IMqV2k8eDj9POJlQ0IX7eIzovjYq7gV6E6LTOjmAlINIIbxQM=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGpPWDYUJ66oA2gzjXYk2fvRaRMZeY4wCyS0KmimXtid03ahCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6nZ-SkxvJLrOCOIdUtLOsdnl94DoX_NHY0uwZ7sw78t24FQ33QJlJU95W7Sk1ja5EFic5a3yql14MLmSAYFZvLGBS4lDUJfr8ut9hdB7GD4=@protonmail.com>
<CALZpt+Ee9kuVjpXYgOb_7dB7Yr8HYmicdRhfgXsQkey2szNDHg@mail.gmail.com>
<0mhhHzTun8dpIcLda1CLFihMsgLoWQUEE8woKUKhf_UHYps2w7jVzbJAUJ302kQEB1ZdvMfakP9IBUHLM8bGns-pg0NHmpuak3yjpphjJnw=@protonmail.com>
<CAD5xwhh9JHE0QAfRMeKs7w=L-GB5DaEomsQ0aH4ibSDi9Oe8Rg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAB3F3Dt6znirMfe4C6ASh6OvS_qR7XLx1fQ4O5ZCwbxhcNKsNg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGpPWDYUJ66oA2gzjXYk2fvRaRMZeY4wCyS0KmimXtid03ahCw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] `OP_EVICT`: An Alternative to
`OP_TAPLEAFUPDATEVERIFY`
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, 19 Feb 2022 11:41:54 -0000
Good morning Billy,
> >=C2=A0"fully" punitive channels also make large value channels more dang=
erous from the perspective of bugs causing old=C2=A0states to be published
>
> Wouldn't it be ideal to have the penalty be to pay for a single extra tra=
nsaction fee? That way there is a penalty so cheating attempts aren't free =
(for someone who wants to close a channel anyway) and yet a single fee isn'=
t going to be much of a concern in the accidental publishing case. It still=
perplexes me why eltoo chose no penalty at all vs a small penalty like tha=
t.
Nothing in the Decker-Russell-Osunstokun paper *prevents* that --- you coul=
d continue to retain per-participant versions of update+state transactions =
(congruent to the per-participant commitment transactions of Poon-Dryja) an=
d have each participant hold a version that deducts the fee from their main=
owned funds.
The Decker-Russell-Osuntokun paper simply focuses on the mechanism by itsel=
f without regard to fees, on the understanding that the reader already know=
s fees exist and need to be paid.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
