From ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com Thu Mar 14 05:22:59 2019 From: ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com (ZmnSCPxj) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 05:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Lightning-dev] More thoughts on NOINPUT safety In-Reply-To: <20190313111050.qj3s6utpl2x34sam@erisian.com.au> References: <20190313014143.ifffshwdux2jt7w5@erisian.com.au> <20190313111050.qj3s6utpl2x34sam@erisian.com.au> Message-ID: Good morning aj, When reading through your original post I saw you mentioned something about output tagging somehow conflicting with Taproot, so I assumed Taproot is not useable in this case. However, it is probably more likely that I simply misunderstood what you said, so if you can definitively say that it would be possible to hide the clause "or a NOINPUT sig from A with a non-NOINPUT sig from B" behind a Taproot then I am fine. Minor pointless reactions: > 5. if you're using scriptless scripts to do HTLCs, you'll need to > allow for NOINPUT sigs when claiming funds as well (and update > the partial signatures for the non-NOINPUT cases if you want to > maximise privacy), which is a bit fiddly If I remember accurately, we do not allow bilateral/cooperative close when HTLC is in-flight. However, I notice that later you point out that a non-cheating unilateral close does not need NOINPUT, so I suppose. the above thought applies to that case. Regards, ZmnSCPxj