📅 Original date posted:2023-01-04
🗒️ Summary of this message: A proposal for using a covenant to establish a channel without an expiry date, allowing it to be a first-class citizen among channels.
📝 Original message:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:06:36PM +1100, Lloyd Fournier wrote:
> The advantage of using a covenant
> is that the channel would not have an expiry date and therefore be a first
> class citizen among channels.
I think the approach here would be:
* receive funds on the in-potentiam address with 8000 block CSV
* LSP tracks immediately
* user's wallet wakes up, LSP reports address to user, user signs
a funding tx to establish the channel, and the state 0 close tx
* LSP considers it immediately active
* LSP broadcasts the tx, targeting confirmation within 3 days
* if the funding tx confirms promptly, you just have an ordinary channel
* after 800 blocks, if the tx hasn't confirmed, LSP fee bumps or
closes the channel (relying on the high-feerate unilateral close
tx to do the fee bumping)
ie:
day 0: someone -> in-potentiam address (payment made on-chain, confirmed)
day 7: in-potentiam -> funding (wallet wakes up, tx signed and broadcast,
not necessarily confirmed, channel active)
day 12: in-potentiam -> funding (confirmed)
day 9999: funding -> unilateral/cooperative close
or:
day 0: someone -> in-potentiam address (payment made on-chain, confirmed)
day 14: LSP forgets about in-potentiam utxo as its expiry is only 1000
blocks away
day 420: in-potentiam -> wherever (payment made on-chain by user)
So while the tx introspection approach you advocate *would* allow the
setup phase to skip the "expiry on day 14" restriction, I think the
*bigger* benefit is that you also wouldn't need the on-chain "in-potentiam
-> funding" transaction, but could instead just leave the in-potentiam
tx on chain indefinitely, until it was time to close the channel (which,
if it was a cooperative close, could just be a musig key path spend).
Either approach probably implies that you either have multiple channels
with your LSP (one for each in-potentiam payment you receive), or
that your single channel with your LSP is backed by multiple UTXOs
(maybe you choose an order for them, so that Alice owns 100% of the
balance in utxos 1..(k-1) and Bob owns 100% of the balance in utxos
(k+1)..n?). Otherwise you'd need an on-chain tx anyway to splice the new
funds into your existing channel; and that seems both annoying of itself,
and probably bad for privacy.
Cheers,
aj
Anthony Towns [ARCHIVE] /
npub17r…x9l2h
2023-06-09 13:12:26
in reply to nevent1q…2ne3
Author Public Key
npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2hPublished at
2023-06-09 13:12:26Event JSON
{
"id": "be9a142dbceaa67fa4dae6fc1a0b66d9228226158b6b0d95d03f54d5f7adeae1",
"pubkey": "f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab",
"created_at": 1686316346,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3be914e57f30cb1ca11948ee6880cb934d9f0f4119bdc9f8dec8b3a43f682538",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8e8a112369773cc5089b8e6ae417ee0eb141c10efbfb8d47eac30dfffc16368f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b5ff7c704f90e4eebfa414c0a017a84544c32586a1bd2fc86c74c2914d03c25e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-01-04\n🗒️ Summary of this message: A proposal for using a covenant to establish a channel without an expiry date, allowing it to be a first-class citizen among channels.\n📝 Original message:\nOn Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:06:36PM +1100, Lloyd Fournier wrote:\n\u003e The advantage of using a covenant\n\u003e is that the channel would not have an expiry date and therefore be a first\n\u003e class citizen among channels.\n\nI think the approach here would be:\n\n * receive funds on the in-potentiam address with 8000 block CSV\n * LSP tracks immediately\n * user's wallet wakes up, LSP reports address to user, user signs\n a funding tx to establish the channel, and the state 0 close tx\n * LSP considers it immediately active\n * LSP broadcasts the tx, targeting confirmation within 3 days\n * if the funding tx confirms promptly, you just have an ordinary channel\n * after 800 blocks, if the tx hasn't confirmed, LSP fee bumps or\n closes the channel (relying on the high-feerate unilateral close\n tx to do the fee bumping)\n\nie:\n\n day 0: someone -\u003e in-potentiam address (payment made on-chain, confirmed)\n\n day 7: in-potentiam -\u003e funding (wallet wakes up, tx signed and broadcast,\n not necessarily confirmed, channel active)\n\n day 12: in-potentiam -\u003e funding (confirmed)\n\n day 9999: funding -\u003e unilateral/cooperative close\n\nor:\n\n day 0: someone -\u003e in-potentiam address (payment made on-chain, confirmed)\n\n day 14: LSP forgets about in-potentiam utxo as its expiry is only 1000\n blocks away\n\n day 420: in-potentiam -\u003e wherever (payment made on-chain by user)\n\nSo while the tx introspection approach you advocate *would* allow the\nsetup phase to skip the \"expiry on day 14\" restriction, I think the\n*bigger* benefit is that you also wouldn't need the on-chain \"in-potentiam\n-\u003e funding\" transaction, but could instead just leave the in-potentiam\ntx on chain indefinitely, until it was time to close the channel (which,\nif it was a cooperative close, could just be a musig key path spend).\n\nEither approach probably implies that you either have multiple channels\nwith your LSP (one for each in-potentiam payment you receive), or\nthat your single channel with your LSP is backed by multiple UTXOs\n(maybe you choose an order for them, so that Alice owns 100% of the\nbalance in utxos 1..(k-1) and Bob owns 100% of the balance in utxos\n(k+1)..n?). Otherwise you'd need an on-chain tx anyway to splice the new\nfunds into your existing channel; and that seems both annoying of itself,\nand probably bad for privacy.\n\nCheers,\naj",
"sig": "9278d512cc82de823db80cbfee9f89acdd4de88fee1d041e84435df2d09a2b2373e5524cceaf512f412dfb5d0ab92b160728248b731a044ac1b7aeb12fe730e4"
}