📅 Original date posted:2020-02-12
📝 Original message:
Good morning niftynei, and waxwing, and list,
> > s = k + H(kG || kJ || P || P2 || utxo || receiving-node) x
>
> > and as before transfer opening: (P, P2, u, s, e) with receiving-node implicitly reconstructed to do the verification of the Schnorr sig. It's basically a message in a signature.
>
> Oh that's *much* nicer than calculating a second commitment. Verification by any node that's not the intended recipient will fail, as they'll use the wrong node_id (their own).
>
> It seems unnecessary to me to commit to the utxo, since the pubkey pair effectively does that. What's the motivation for including it?
Probably so that address reuse is not dinged, i.e. I have two UTXOs with the same address and want to make two different channels with different peers.
While address reuse Is Bad, you might not have much control over some wog who is supposed to pay you and decides to give you your money in two separate UTXOs to the same address.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g5…3ms3l
2023-06-09 12:58:45
in reply to nevent1q…ddms
Author Public Key
npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3lPublished at
2023-06-09 12:58:45Event JSON
{
"id": "4093d32ecceb8748106dcc3d2ebdec4fabaa92d742507ec281396711abd0beaa",
"pubkey": "4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861",
"created_at": 1686315525,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c218110e24b04f0c1c5d2dd6e63487b0dca619f1f570c991ff7f4dc7c65213bd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ccec1a4e26be0e397d0b925a58058f09c6e92d2fa8541f12d9d8a3149c0a0865",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"804770eb58d163d63f0f996fd6bebabe1b8c582a5dd544cf61bba0bc5335720a"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2020-02-12\n📝 Original message:\nGood morning niftynei, and waxwing, and list,\n\n\u003e \u003e s = k + H(kG || kJ || P || P2 || utxo || receiving-node) x\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e and as before transfer opening: (P, P2, u, s, e) with receiving-node implicitly reconstructed to do the verification of the Schnorr sig. It's basically a message in a signature.\n\u003e\n\u003e Oh that's *much* nicer than calculating a second commitment. Verification by any node that's not the intended recipient will fail, as they'll use the wrong node_id (their own). \n\u003e\n\u003e It seems unnecessary to me to commit to the utxo, since the pubkey pair effectively does that. What's the motivation for including it?\n\nProbably so that address reuse is not dinged, i.e. I have two UTXOs with the same address and want to make two different channels with different peers.\n\nWhile address reuse Is Bad, you might not have much control over some wog who is supposed to pay you and decides to give you your money in two separate UTXOs to the same address.\n\nRegards,\nZmnSCPxj",
"sig": "6fdd69a6ef4a0f33a6510336b668367dc84d599cc080015754b217dccfbc992fa86b7acbc35b7acc3ca5a4d6403cbcc0e2b54a2bef2cfb35e00c9b056e966da0"
}