From matsjj at gmail.com Thu Aug 13 20:29:06 2015 From: matsjj at gmail.com (Mats Jerratsch) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:29:06 +0200 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Pure No-Trust Solution using only OP_CLTV In-Reply-To: <20150813195040.GB17304@lightning.network> References: <20150813195040.GB17304@lightning.network> Message-ID: Ah nice, Yea this is pretty much the same. :) It seemed too trivial for me as well. I wonder why everyone thinks that CLTV+CSV is the mandatory minimum we need for a full LN though. Granted, it's not as much 'fun' as you put it, but it would work very nice in most instances. 2015-08-13 22:06 GMT+02:00 Joseph Poon : > Hi Mats, > > Yes, I agree that this is a possibility. > > I had discussed this model of OP_CLTV without OP_CSV using a balance > reserve on the mailing list, along with some caveats on the > risks/effects of doing so. > > Message ID: 20150727193714.GA16768 at lightning.network > Link: > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2015-July/000070.html > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 08:37:18PM +0200, Mats Jerratsch wrote: >> Joseph asked, what changes OP_CLTV would bring to my Thunder proposal, >> and I started working out, how much is actually possible with only >> CLTV implemented. > > I think very minor changes to the code would result in full lightning > channels, as per Rusty's doc, yes. I think there will be huge benefits > to Bitcoin if bitcoinj has an implementation ready when OP_CLTV/OP_CSV > is implemented. > > -- > Joseph Poon