š
Original date posted:2021-02-13
š Original message:
Good morning Andres,
> > > Is there any disadvantage about using dual-hash HTLCs?
> > > Is it supported by the current LN spec?
> >
> > It is no supported by current LN spec, and PTLCs are overall superior (they are equivalent to having any number of hashes, not just 2 that dual-hash HTLCs can do).
> > So if we need to change the LN spec anyway, PTLCs are still the better choice, since they enable a lot more, and we probably want to support that in the future anyway, so we might as well do HTLC->PTLC rather than HTLC->2HTLC->PTLC.
>
> But anyway any L2 wallet that interacts with this, will need to be aware of the escrow, so developing an 2HTLC extension for it to work with the current version of bitcoin (instead of waiting for Taproot) should be doable, right?
Every forwarding node needs to support 2HTLC or PTLC, meaning it has to be a network-wide upgrade.
Then once the network-wide upgrade is deployed, individual endpoints just have to understand this protocol.
Because of the need of widespread upgrade, we would prefer to just upgrade once, from HTLCs to PTLCs, rather than have multiple network-wide upgrades.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g5ā¦3ms3l
2023-06-09 13:02:01
in reply to nevent1qā¦0kpd
Author Public Key
npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3lPublished at
2023-06-09 13:02:01Event JSON
{
"id": "07e853d6916b05d2b095d933d46051e0ac0ddeb3eb62390f3bfdfa5aa893977e",
"pubkey": "4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861",
"created_at": 1686315721,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"314d09df8983f36a6cfef295360e46d7142fc01ed765a13fbdab5e1db6b5c415",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"53f66bb68ae33629c7d15c135ee73f52c94a3137c9a7893c5a6a2f8c9a59feb0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"8e5fc86df9a80e0d9988200f4374243d6e385a112063ed34067efb4edf2d802b"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2021-02-13\nš Original message:\nGood morning Andres,\n\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Is there any disadvantage about using dual-hash HTLCs?\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Is it supported by the current LN spec?\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e It is no supported by current LN spec, and PTLCs are overall superior (they are equivalent to having any number of hashes, not just 2 that dual-hash HTLCs can do).\n\u003e \u003e So if we need to change the LN spec anyway, PTLCs are still the better choice, since they enable a lot more, and we probably want to support that in the future anyway, so we might as well do HTLC-\u003ePTLC rather than HTLC-\u003e2HTLC-\u003ePTLC.\n\u003e\n\u003e But anyway any L2 wallet that interacts with this, will need to be aware of the escrow, so developing an 2HTLC extension for it to work with the current version of bitcoin (instead of waiting for Taproot) should be doable, right?\n\nEvery forwarding node needs to support 2HTLC or PTLC, meaning it has to be a network-wide upgrade.\nThen once the network-wide upgrade is deployed, individual endpoints just have to understand this protocol.\n\nBecause of the need of widespread upgrade, we would prefer to just upgrade once, from HTLCs to PTLCs, rather than have multiple network-wide upgrades.\n\nRegards,\nZmnSCPxj",
"sig": "b5d47ad80c6449f3b430660cb508710082a7b68429d75a2fcacd902240b8a056d8948f63e46bd2b8594232f5773b58a3723107a9204ee4af0d4c2d59d97cd989"
}