Thibaut Le Guilly [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2021-12-27 to 2022-07-04
💬 Posted a total of 4 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev, dlc-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-09 13:06:34

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2022-07-03
📝 Original message:
Hi Laolu,
Thanks a lot for bringing this topic to the list as well as your comments
and pointers to your code. I'll just share what I wrote in the PR below.
One of the motivations I had for having the segment explicit was to be able
to handle disconnects/reconnects without requiring access to the low level
network layer. Granted it might not be the best reason, but another reason
I can think of was mentioned by Christian Decker [1], the ability to send
an urgent message in the middle of sending a large one (I cannot think how
this could be achieved without headers, but I might just lack imagination).
That being said, I don't have a strong opinion on what is the best, and if
there is a need for something similar in LN it'd be really nice that we use
the same thing (less thing for our small community to maintain, and we
already rely on quite some of the LN messages anyway so I think it'd make
sense).
Also thanks to all the other developers who provided comments/feedback (and
to Chris for asking them), I really appreciate it.
Cheers,
Thibaut
[1]:
https://github.com/discreetlogcontracts/dlcspecs/pull/192#discussion_r894383344
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 9:16 AM Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi y'all,
>
> Quick post...
>
> A few weeks ago, some of the dlcspecs developers reached out to ask for
> feedback on this PR [1] that attempts to specify a way to send messages
> larger
> than 65 KB using BOLT 8 (Noise based encrypted transport). After taking a
> glance at the PR, I realized that it isn't totally obvious from reading
> BOLT
> 8 that it's actually possible to do this w/o adding any new application
> layer messages (as the PR proposes).
>
> As I explained in my comment [2], all the sender needs to do is chunk their
> messages, and the receiver reads out messages into a read buffer exposed
> over
> a stream-like interface. This is no different than using TCP/IP to send a
> 65
> KB message over the wire: a series of messages below the Maximum
> Transmission Unit at each hop are sent, w/ the receiver
> collecting/re-ordering them all before delivering up the API stack.
>
> This was actually in the OG spec, but then was removed to make things a bit
> simpler. Here's my commit from way back when implementing this behavior
> [3].
> If we wanted to re-introduce this behavior (so we can do things like
> increase the max HTLC limit w/o having to worry about messages being to
> large due to all the extra sigs), afaict, we could just add a new wumbo
> message feature bit. This bit indicates that a peer knows how to properly
> chunk and aggregate larger messages.
>
>
> [1]: https://github.com/discreetlogcontracts/dlcspecs/pull/192
> [2]:
> https://github.com/discreetlogcontracts/dlcspecs/pull/192#issuecomment-1171569378
> [3]:
> https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/commit/767c550d65ef97a765eabe09c97941d91e05f054
>
> -- Laolu
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20220704/3e18714f/attachment.html>

2023-06-09 13:06:34

- reply

2023-06-07 23:03:51

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2022-02-07
📝 Original message:Hi all,
A lot is being discussed but just wanted to react on some points.
# CSFS
Lloyd, good point about CSFS not providing the same privacy benefits, and
OP_CAT being required in addition. And thanks Philipp for the link to your
post, it was an interesting read!
Jeremy
>CSFS might have independent benefits, but in this case CTV is not being
used in the Oracle part of the DLC, it's being used in the user generated
mapping of Oracle result to Transaction Outcome.
My point was that CSFS could be used both in the oracle part but also in
the transaction restriction part (as in the post by Philipp), but again it
does not really provide the same model as DLC as pointed out by Lloyd.
# Performance
Regarding how much performance benefit this CTV approach would provide,
without considering the benefit of not having to transmit and store a large
number of adaptor signatures, and without considering any further
optimization of the anticipation points computation, I tried to get a rough
estimate through some benchmarking. Basically, if I'm not mistaken, using
CTV we would only have to compute the oracle anticipation points, without
needing any signing or verification. I've thus made a benchmark comparing
the current approach with signing + verification with only computing the
anticipation points, for a single oracle with 17 digits and 10000 varying
payouts (between 45000 and 55000). The results are below.
Without using parallelization:
baseline: [7.8658 s 8.1122 s 8.3419 s]
no signing/no verification: [321.52 ms 334.18 ms 343.65 ms]
Using parallelization:
baseline: [3.0030 s 3.1811 s 3.3851 s]
no signing/no verification: [321.52 ms 334.18 ms 343.65 ms]
So it seems like the performance improvement is roughly 24x for the serial
case and 10x for the parallel case.
The two benchmarks are available (how to run them is detailed in the README
in the same folder):
*
https://github.com/p2pderivatives/rust-dlc/blob/ctv-bench-simulation-baseline/dlc-manager/benches/benchmarks.rs#L290
*
https://github.com/p2pderivatives/rust-dlc/blob/ctv-bench-simulation/dlc-manager/benches/benchmarks.rs#L290
Let me know if you think that's a fair simulation or not. One thing I'd
like to see as well is what will be the impact of having a very large
taproot tree on the size of the witness data when spending script paths
that are low in the tree, and how it would affect the transaction fee. I
might try to experiment with that at some point.
Cheers,
Thibaut
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 2:56 AM Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure what is meant concretely by (5) but I think overall
> performance is ok here. You will always have 10mins or so to confirm the
> DLC so you can't be too fussy about performance!
>
>
> I mean that if you think of the CIT points as being the X axis (or
> independent axes if multivariate) of a contract, the Y axis is the
> dependent variable represented by the CTV hashes.
>
>
> For a DLC living inside a lightning channel, which might be updated
> between parties e.g. every second, this means you only have to recompute
> the cheaper part of the DLC only if you update the payoff curves (y axis)
> only, and you only have to update the points whose y value changes.
>
> For on chain DLCs this point is less relevant since the latency of block
> space is larger.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220207/c52fa87e/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 23:03:51

- reply

2023-06-07 23:02:44

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2022-01-26
📝 Original message:Hi,
Lloyd, thanks for this excellent writeup. I must say that indeed using CTV
seems like it would very much lower the complexity of the DLC protocol (and
it seems like APO would also work, thanks Jonas for pointing that out).
Though thinking about it, I can't help wondering if the ideal op code for
DLC wouldn't actually be CHECKSIGFROMSTACK? It feels to me that this would
give the most natural way of doing things. If I'm not mistaken, this would
enable simply requiring an oracle signature over the outcome, without any
special trick, and without even needing the oracle to release a nonce in
advance (the oracle could sign `event_outcome + event_id` to avoid
signature reuse). I must say that I haven't studied covenant opcodes in
detail yet so is that line of thinking correct or am I missing something?
Cheers,
Thibaut
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 1:27 AM Jonas Nick via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Thank you, that's an interesting application of OP_CTV.
>
> Perhaps worth pointing out that this does not require OP_CTV but could
> also be
> enabled by other covenant constructions. For example, it seems like
> ANYPREVOUT-based covenants provide similar benefits. The script of the
> Taproot
> leaves could be set to
>
> <sig> <G> CHECKSIGVERIFY <CET_i> CHECKSIGVERIFY
>
> where <sig> is an ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT signature of the CET for public key
> P = G.
> When using nonce R = G, signature creation has negligible computational
> cost (s
> = 1 + H(R, P, m)). A downside compared to CTV is the additional overhead
> of 64
> witness bytes (<sig>).
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220127/6f228196/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 23:02:44

- reply

2023-06-07 23:01:39

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2021-12-27
📝 Original message:Hi all,
Did someone say rust-dlc? Just kidding, but wanted to mention that indeed
it's under active development, supports multi oracle contracts and many
other cool things (pretty much everything you can find in the dlc specs)!
Otherwise nice article Jeremy. Maybe you should drop by our monthly DLC
spec meeting one of these days. I'm sure everybody would be happy to hear
how we could improve the Bitcoin derivatives ecosystem with CTV and what
infrastructures or code could be reused from DLCs.
Cheers,
Thibaut
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 7:39 AM yancy via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Prayank,
>
> I believe the p2pderivatives DLC application is still under active
> development here (single oracle):
> https://github.com/p2pderivatives/rust-dlc
>
> I was once involved in the project in a galaxy far far away but haven't
> kept up with the project. Also, I'm a few days behind in the Bitcoin
> Advent Calendar :)
>
> Cheers,
> -Yancy
>
>
> On 2021-12-24 17:42, Prayank via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Hi Jeremy,
> >
> >> Wheres the info come from? Well, multiple places. We could get it
> > from a third party (maybe using an attestation chain of some sort?),
> > or there are certain ways it could be self-referential (like for
> > powswap [1]).
> >
> >> Now let’s define a threshold oracle – we wouldn’t want to
> > trust just one lousy oracle, so let’s trust M out of N of them!
> >
> > Similar approach is used in discreet log contracts for multi oracles.
> > There is even a project for P2P derivatives but it was not used for
> > any real trades on mainnet or further developed. What difference would
> > OP_CTV make in this project if its implemented in Bitcoin?
> >
> > https://github.com/p2pderivatives/p2pderivatives-client
> >
> > https://github.com/p2pderivatives/p2pderivatives-server
> >
> > https://github.com/p2pderivatives/p2pderivatives-oracle
> >
> >> Does this NEED CTV?
> >
> > No, not in particular. Most of this stuff could be done with online
> > signer server federation between you and counterparty. CTV makes some
> > stuff nicer though, and opens up new possibilities for opening these
> > contracts unilaterally.
> >
> > Nicer? How would unilateral derivatives work because my understanding
> > was that you always need a peer to take the other side of the trade. I
> > wish we could discuss this topic in a trading community with some
> > Bitcoiners that even had some programming knowledge.
> >
> > Derivatives are interesting and less explored or used in Bitcoin
> > projects. They could be useful in solving lot of problems.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Prayank
> >
> > A3B1 E430 2298 178F
> >
> >
> > Links:
> > ------
> > [1] https://powswap.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20211227/a1d82a30/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 23:01:39

- reply