Author: Jeremy 2020-06-11 17:21:08
Published on: 2020-06-11T17:21:08+00:00
Jeremy Rubin shared his insights on designing payment pools, specifically regarding the requirement of non-interactive any-order withdrawal property. He suggested setting the requirement to O(log(n)) instead of O(1) space and presented a CTV-based payment pool design where channels are constructed and set up non-interactively using CTV. He compared the exit non-cooperative scenario across CTV pools and Accumulator pools and found that CTV pools have a clear benefit since the last recipient can always clear in log(N) time while the accumulator pool's last recipient has to wait much longer. CTV-style pools also have a bisecting property, allowing for easier handling of uncooperative withdrawals. In terms of availability, CTV pools require only the immediate counterparty to be online, while accumulator pools need all parties online to make payments. Both protocols require new features in Bitcoin, but CTV is relatively simple compared to accumulators plus sighashnoinput. The payment pool can be created non-interactively in both designs, allowing third parties to withdraw users' funds into a payment pool.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T02:23:14.423822+00:00