Author: ZmnSCPxj 2020-08-25 12:45:50
Published on: 2020-08-25T12:45:50+00:00
In a conversation between two individuals, one commends the other on their work while pointing out a few issues. The discussed issue is about the reduction of implementation complexity in terms of asymmetrical transactions. They consider if there would be a decrease in complexity with the new system of keeping a copy of the shared commitment transaction and the partial signature received for our own asymmetric signature from the other side. However, it is noted that storage complexity will still remain the same. Additionally, it is mentioned that with asymmetric transactions, it is relatively easy to use TCP to communicate changes to the commitment txes. Furthermore, the two discuss the synchronization of the two sides with regards to forwarding HTLCs (Hashed Time-Locked Contracts). They consider solutions such as having a "token" that is passed alternately between the participants or having different histories for both sides of the channel. The former solution requires a good amount of bandwidth in such token-passing messages, which can multiply with the number of channels a single node has. If token-passing is not done in short time frames (sub-second), then it potentially increases the latency of forwarding, thus this represents a latency vs bandwidth tradeoff. Ultimately, they conclude that there may be better solutions for this race-condition problem; however, it seems to negate the stated goal of removing the different transactions on both sides and the hoped-for reduction in complexity, so an exercise in futility.
Updated on: 2023-06-03T02:02:34.056000+00:00