📅 Original date posted:2015-08-13
📝 Original message:
Ah nice,
Yea this is pretty much the same. :)
It seemed too trivial for me as well. I wonder why everyone thinks
that CLTV+CSV is the mandatory minimum we need for a full LN though.
Granted, it's not as much 'fun' as you put it, but it would work very
nice in most instances.
2015-08-13 22:06 GMT+02:00 Joseph Poon <joseph at lightning.network>:
> Hi Mats,
>
> Yes, I agree that this is a possibility.
>
> I had discussed this model of OP_CLTV without OP_CSV using a balance
> reserve on the mailing list, along with some caveats on the
> risks/effects of doing so.
>
> Message ID: 20150727193714.GA16768 at lightning.network
> Link:
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2015-July/000070.html
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 08:37:18PM +0200, Mats Jerratsch wrote:
>> Joseph asked, what changes OP_CLTV would bring to my Thunder proposal,
>> and I started working out, how much is actually possible with only
>> CLTV implemented.
>
> I think very minor changes to the code would result in full lightning
> channels, as per Rusty's doc, yes. I think there will be huge benefits
> to Bitcoin if bitcoinj has an implementation ready when OP_CLTV/OP_CSV
> is implemented.
>
> --
> Joseph Poon
Mats Jerratsch [ARCHIVE] /
npub1hz…q5x8w
2023-06-09 12:44:02
in reply to nevent1q…gfct
Author Public Key
npub1hz386xq4qszumlx5fsxa3kuxpaf8qvfrqqjg8zdl2l892hrcg55q6q5x8wPublished at
2023-06-09 12:44:02Event JSON
{
"id": "3d086a9dfc08620c93dc746125d44b54c2c5cd6f3bbf6822a04f12ba7f73a439",
"pubkey": "b8a27d18150405cdfcd44c0dd8db860f5270312300248389bf57ce555c784528",
"created_at": 1686314642,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a5defc49e7ac73799668fea61a6625a1d57e6837b3a9f369f910c413df52c76e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2767876dcb4554b24e3875b64dd056395b6b566c7c72f05ba87db5129f916139",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ccb4cc87c455b74febaee5929cfd0726421b2eea64ad2b16440b68e8c7433211"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-13\n📝 Original message:\nAh nice,\n\nYea this is pretty much the same. :)\nIt seemed too trivial for me as well. I wonder why everyone thinks\nthat CLTV+CSV is the mandatory minimum we need for a full LN though.\nGranted, it's not as much 'fun' as you put it, but it would work very\nnice in most instances.\n\n2015-08-13 22:06 GMT+02:00 Joseph Poon \u003cjoseph at lightning.network\u003e:\n\u003e Hi Mats,\n\u003e\n\u003e Yes, I agree that this is a possibility.\n\u003e\n\u003e I had discussed this model of OP_CLTV without OP_CSV using a balance\n\u003e reserve on the mailing list, along with some caveats on the\n\u003e risks/effects of doing so.\n\u003e\n\u003e Message ID: 20150727193714.GA16768 at lightning.network\n\u003e Link:\n\u003e http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2015-July/000070.html\n\u003e\n\u003e On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 08:37:18PM +0200, Mats Jerratsch wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Joseph asked, what changes OP_CLTV would bring to my Thunder proposal,\n\u003e\u003e and I started working out, how much is actually possible with only\n\u003e\u003e CLTV implemented.\n\u003e\n\u003e I think very minor changes to the code would result in full lightning\n\u003e channels, as per Rusty's doc, yes. I think there will be huge benefits\n\u003e to Bitcoin if bitcoinj has an implementation ready when OP_CLTV/OP_CSV\n\u003e is implemented.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Joseph Poon",
"sig": "6c88ff4e31566d6cbcd28b286e29fa4cb945fd9f0f58f1796692cfc06f94c11f4618c7a95f7c8a6592d77a5bbac398b8c58de256c71822a70cb71a23f4622c73"
}