Author: Lloyd Fournier 2019-08-12 09:22:29
Published on: 2019-08-12T09:22:29+00:00
In an email exchange between Runchao Han, ZmnSCPxj and LL, the group discusses a potential simplification to the explanation of a construction that involves joint signatures and payment channels. LL attempts to distill the idea into a simpler form, which involves negotiating parameters between Alice and Bob before moving on to four main steps. Step one involves Alice signing and broadcasting the BTC-HTLC and sending signature(s) on her input(s) to the WTJ-HLTC to Bob. In step two, upon receiving Alice's input signature(s) and seeing the BTC-HTLC with sufficient confirmations, Bob completes the transaction by supplying his own signature(s) and broadcasts it. If Bob delays at this point, Alice may withdraw her offer by double spending one of her inputs to the WTJ-HTLC. In step three, upon seeing the WTJ-HTLC get sufficient confirmations, Alice takes the funds (including her collateral back) by revealing the secret. Finally, step four is as usual. The group notes that at each step there is no unfair advantage to either party. The email also includes ZmnSCPxj's response to Runchao's previous email regarding a protocol from Fournier et al. ZmnSCPxj disagrees with the order presented in the protocol and provides his own order of steps. He argues that his approach does not require blockchain-layer atomic swaps, but rather Lightning-layer atomic swaps, which requires the use of two hashes. However, using two hashes would leak to intermediate hops that the payment involved a cross-currency swap. Additionally, the group discusses various scenarios where Alice or Bob may stall or delay, and the consequences of each situation. Overall, the group discusses the technical details of different constructions involving atomic swaps and payment channels.
Updated on: 2023-06-13T20:56:39.815924+00:00