From ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com Fri May 5 05:00:17 2017 From: ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com (ZmnSCPxj) Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 01:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Transaction revocation within transaction malleability via anyone-can-revoke hashlocks In-Reply-To: <871ss4f2s0.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87mvb2hckp.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <878tmhgprw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <871ss4f2s0.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Message-ID: <8C9SRj7klMQdlJwG7S0C__tQKxhRIK0iZdQlKWjA9ARPWBZXRpQcAOHkFIdmuh183_bF97b3Y7ZxYhpIB0K5Cz8m8pYkqiZQjgXxU2PMoFg=@protonmail.com> Good morning Rusty, >> Do you think it's a good idea to publish revocation keys, and have the condition (Alice && revokekey) || (CSV + 1 && revokekey) || (CSV + 2 && Bob)? That way, you can revoke immediately if iyu are online, or anyone (including Bob) can poach it if you let the CSV+1 lapse (the hope is, Bob's probability of poaching via this method is low, so, it will disincentivize Bob). If you don't want anyone to poach the money via anyone-can-revoke, you can keep the revocation key to yourself, but you must ensure you can get online before the CSV+2 period arrives. >I think it's a good idea to use segwit, and not rely on these kind of >games... I understand. >>>You can certainly have trusted watchers know >>>your revocation keys (and they have a very compact form, so the storage >>>is ~log2(num-transactions). >> >> Maybe, you mean, counterparty's revocation key? (sorry, I want to confirm my understanding of low level of Lightning Network) > >Ah, terminology? I meant A could share the key which allows A to spend >B's old commitment transactions. Thank you very much your explanation! Regards, ZmnSCPxj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: