pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 24 replies \ @justin_shocknet 26 Mar \ parent \ on: Hedgehog: A protocol for asynchronous layer two bitcoin payments bitcoin
But until you sweep it, you are trusting the sender not to close.
I don't see how that reduces the trust requirement, you're just using the word server instead of sender.
until you sweep it, you are trusting the sender not to close
if they close, you can enforce the latest state as long as you do so within 2016 blocks
not the same with lnurlw
if an lnurlw server closes before you redeem your lnurlw, you lose everything
Hedgehog gives you a window of time to redeem it unilaterally because closing isn't done until the 2016 blocks are up
reply
@supertestnet congrats on improving, solving even, a major issue and threat that LNURL-W does not solve. You have provided a solution that offers a robust expiration date of 2016 blocks and removed the threat of channel closures that can and do steal funds.
Going from funds being lost a millisecond after payment or some arbitrary channel closure time to funds being lost after 2016 blocks (~ two weeks) is a win for the LN community. We should celebrate this improvement (and test it obviously).
If the Hedgehog thesis holds up, I think it will accelerate LN usage and infrastructure build out. LN operators can sigh a collective relief that their channel liquidity will not get rugged immediately by channel closures, now they have 2 weeks notice.
reply
This guy gets it
reply
On twitter you confirmed the opposite, but even so that gets back to it not being asynchronous because the receiver being offline (without latest state) is trusting the sender to provide the promise
reply
On twitter you confirmed the opposite
Link?
the receiver being offline (without latest state) is trusting the sender to provide the promise
If the sender doesn't send the payment info then he didn't make a payment
This seems a bit like saying "bitcoin is trusted because you haven't received anything unless someone sends it to you"
reply
If the sender doesn't send the payment info then he didn't make a payment
You're the one that brought up taking down the LNURL-W server, sure if the server goes down the payment isn't made
So calling this asynchronous is false, because you're trying to compare it to Bitcoin in where the receiver doesn't need to do anything
reply
if the server goes down the payment isn't made
True
With hedgehog, if the sender closes after sending you a payment, the payment is still available for another 2016 blocks
So calling this asynchronous is false
It sounds asynchronous to me
you're trying to compare it to Bitcoin in where the receiver doesn't need to do anything
You can compare things that are different
Hedgehog is different from bitcoin because the recipient must act within a certain amount of time
It is unlike lnurlw because he does have a certain amount of time to act after a channel closure (assuming the sender did actually send him a payment)
reply
The use of the term asynchronous seems only to serve as a distinction from other solutions as being synchronous, which is why I wanted to clarify about LNURL-W/LN
Hedgehog is different from bitcoin because the recipient must act within a certain amount of time (num blocks)
LNURL-W is different from bitcoin because the recipient must act within a certain amount of time (before the server goes down)
So its either async but not an improvement, or its an improvement but not async... seems it can't be both
reply
If those are the only two options, I prefer "improvement but not async"
reply
Then I think it'd be responsible to correct this description, lest we perpetuate a mis-understanding about how things work that'll inevitably lead people to scams