Published on: 2023-09-22T01:03:09+00:00
The email discusses the concept of performing Payment Channel Timelocked Contracts (PTLCs) scriptlessly. This can be achieved by using a 2-of-2 MuSig public key and an adaptor signature. The email mentions two approaches to achieve this: via the key path or via the script path.In the key path approach, nonce exchanges are required, leading to extra communication rounds. On the other hand, in the script path approach, the "hash160 equalverify b checksig" part in the script is replaced with "a checksigverify b checksig". Alice provides Bob with an adaptor signature, which Bob completes when claiming the output.The question raised in the email is how to implement the latter approach. The author suggests that it can be done by having Alice perform a "single party musig2" calculation, rather than needing a separate API.Overall, the email discusses the possibility of performing PTLCs scriptlessly using various approaches, and proposes a solution involving a 2-of-2 MuSig public key and an adaptor signature.AJ,LL is seeking clarification on the distinction between a MuSig2 adaptor signature and a single-singer adaptor with MuSig2. It seems LL wants to understand the key differences between these two concepts. To provide some context, MuSig2 is a cryptographic protocol that allows multiple signers to create a single aggregated signature for a transaction. This helps improve privacy and efficiency in multi-signature schemes. An adaptor signature, on the other hand, is a type of signature that can be "adapted" or tweaked later without invalidating the original signature.Now, let's delve into the specific question raised by LL. A MuSig2 adaptor signature refers to a signature produced using the MuSig2 protocol, where the signer has the ability to adapt or modify the signature after it has been created. This means that even though the signature is initially valid, it can be altered later to produce a different signature that is also valid. The purpose behind this concept is to enhance flexibility in certain scenarios where signature adaptation is required.On the other hand, a single-singer adaptor with MuSig2 refers to a situation where only one signer is involved, but the MuSig2 protocol is still used. In this case, the signature is not intended to be adapted or modified after it has been created. The focus is on utilizing the MuSig2 protocol for achieving secure and efficient single-signer operations.It's worth noting that both concepts leverage the power of the MuSig2 protocol, which brings benefits such as improved security, privacy, and scalability to multi-signature schemes. However, the distinction lies in the ability to adapt the signature in the case of a MuSig2 adaptor signature, whereas a single-singer adaptor with MuSig2 does not involve such adaptation.I hope this clarifies the distinction between a MuSig2 adaptor signature and a single-singer adaptor with MuSig2. If you need further information or have any more questions, feel free to ask.Best regards,[Your Name]The email discusses the implementation of a new feature called PTLC (Point Time Lock Contract) in node software. The sender suggests starting with writing an optional BLIP (BOLT Improvement Proposal) as a way to roll out the feature. They mention that it would be best to focus on interop requirements such as routing gossip, onion messages, invoices, tx format, and peer messaging. These requirements involve making changes at a network/ecosystem-wide level. The sender emphasizes the importance of getting the first three requirements right as soon as possible, while the latter two can be renegotiated between peers without affecting others.The sender suggests picking something easy and pleasant to implement initially and optimizing it later. They provide a link to a GitHub pull request that describes how to do a single-signer adaptor using musig2. They believe this approach combines the benefits of a "single-sig adaptor" while utilizing the musig2 API. The sender also mentions the need to add or re-order peer messages when updating commitment transactions.In terms of efficiency, the sender believes the chosen approach should be comparable to HTLCs (Hash Time Lock Contracts) currently used. It should be relatively easy to think about and implement, and should not worsen the user experience due to a 1.5 round-trip time (RTT) forwarding delay.Once the initial implementation is working, the sender suggests adding feature flags for upgrading the single-sig adaptor to claimable via a musig2 double-sig key path, APO support (signing each PTLC once), 0.5 RTT fast-forwards, and supporting async updates. However, they advise deferring these additions unless the implementer is particularly enthusiastic about them, in order to keep things simple at the start.Greg's email discusses the importance of turning attention to PTLCs (Payment-Channel Time-Locked Contracts) as taproot channels are soon to be deployed.
Updated on: 2023-09-23T01:50:41.014474+00:00