Author: Christian Decker 2018-05-03 10:51:01
Published on: 2018-05-03T10:51:01+00:00
Carsten Otto raised some questions regarding a paper's confusing description of the setup transaction. He mentioned that there was a mix-up between the terms "setup transaction" and "funding transaction", which were both referred to as T_{u,0} without showing them in the diagrams. The setup transaction is simply a transaction that spends funds and creates a single output with the script from Figure 2. However, it was not described formally in the paper. To fix this issue, a suggestion was made to change the setup phase bullet point at the beginning of section 3.In section 3.1, the funding transaction was described as funding "to a multisig address". In the description of trigger transactions, the change was described as "The output from the setup transaction is changed into a simple 2-of-2 multisig output" - which it already is? To address this confusion, it was suggested to call it a multiparty output and reference the script in Figure 2.Carsten Otto also questioned the need for a trigger transaction, which was required because the broadcasted initial/funding/setup transaction included an OP_CLV, which could lead to premature settlement. Removing OP_CLV by changing it to a simple multisig output, seems to solve this issue. He further asked about how the "setup transaction" is supposed to look like without the changes described in section 4.2. The answer given was that it would have arbitrary inputs, and a single output with the script from Figure 2, in the non-trigger case, and in the trigger case, it would be just a `2 A B 2 OP_CMSV`.
Updated on: 2023-05-24T23:53:54.295418+00:00