Author: ZmnSCPxj 2018-12-06 11:20:43
Published on: 2018-12-06T11:20:43+00:00
In this email thread, the topic of discussion is Fulgurite, a generalized version of Lightning shared-ownership update systems (channels). The main insight is that any contract of interest to participants of a single "shared-ownership update system" can be done as long as the contract is enforceable onchain. A "shared-ownership update system" itself is a contract that is enforceable onchain, and therefore it can contain "shared-ownership update systems" of interest to its participants. Subsystems here can have the same set of participants or a subset of participants, but non-participants cannot safely use any such "shared-ownership update system" and any subsystems within it since they have no power to refuse to sign off an invalid state transition.The email also discusses Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer channel factories which are multiparty channels with multiple child 2-party channels. It is noted that having multiple channels between the same two participants is not as valuable, which is why Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer only has two levels in the hierarchy, and why the parent level is multiparty while the child level is 2-party. Additionally, the existing update protocols can carry almost any Bitcoin-enforceable contract, including the same contracts used to enforce them, allowing update protocols to "nest" as in Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer.The email notes that Decker-Wattenhofer and Decker-Russell-Osuntokun impose an extra CSV on their transported contracts, and most contracts cannot be transported across systems. Building transactions might not be able to be 100% transparent to the partition behavior, but it is not considered a major restriction at the moment. However, it is important to worry about CSV requirements earlier rather than later, since it becomes possible as an attack point if not taken care of properly. The email concludes with someone saying that code speaks louder than words.
Updated on: 2023-06-02T15:41:36.416346+00:00