Author: Carsten Otto 2018-05-03 09:00:23
Published on: 2018-05-03T09:00:23+00:00
The author is confused about the formal description of the setup transaction in a paper. There seems to be a mixup between the setup and funding transactions, both named T_{u,0} without showing it in diagrams. In section 3.1, the funding transaction is described as funding "to a multisig address". In the description of trigger transactions, the change is described as "the output from the setup transaction is changed into a simple 2-of-2 multisig output" - which it already is? The trigger transaction is needed because the broadcasted initial/funding/setup transaction includes an OP_CLV, possibly enforcing premature settlement. Removing OP_CLV, by changing it to a simple multisig output, would solve this issue. The author requests Christian to explain how the "setup transaction" should look like without the changes described in section 4.2. The author likes the idea proposed by ZmnSCPxj, but is not able to weigh the pros/cons of both approaches. For a direct unilateral close, both peers would need to know the first update transaction and an attached settlement transaction, which is comparable to the approach presented in the paper (trigger transaction and settlement transaction). The main advantage of getting rid of the trigger transaction seems to be that only two transactions (latest update and settlement) have to be committed to the blockchain in the unilateral case, compared to three (trigger, latest update, settlement) in the approach presented in the paper. The email signature contains the sender's contact details and upcoming events.
Updated on: 2023-05-24T23:50:53.490543+00:00