pull down to refresh

300 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 15 Aug \ on: Federated VS Decentralized (Don't Call it Decentralized) Deus Lo Vult Edition bitcoin
One of my fears if we don't scale the UTXO model is bitcoin becomes a very large federation. It's a far flung fear maybe, but I don't see why anyone would build software that relies on self-sovereign usage when the market is inevitably constrained which creates a custodial feedback loop.
write
preview
1076 sats \ 3 replies \ @nerd2ninja OP 15 Aug
I've been thinking too about how multi-party channels should have a miner fee fund that some of the routing fees go to.
So k00b, I haven't posted in a while because I am extremely busy with studying to advance my career and other money related moves to put myself in a financially strategic position.
When at least the majority of that dust has settled I am trying to read through the various non-soft fork related multi-party channels and I want to write an article that gives the TLDR on the trade-offs of each of them compared to the proposals that do require a softfork. Then if I see more excitement for one of them over the others, maybe I'll attempt to write an implementation spec for it (and then invite the real engineers to shred everything I've written lol)
Just an update about where my head is at and things.
reply
300 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 15 Aug
I'd love to see a working multi-party channel implementation. I feel like I've seen at least three whitepapers with various constructions but all of them required covenant soft-forks iirc. Maybe BitVM fixes them without covenants.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @nerd2ninja OP 15 Aug
The paper I started reading was using timouts and every LN transaction was actually creating a valid Bitcoin transaction with a shorter timeout with the theory being that the shortest timeout transaction would be mined on-chain before any of the older states.
There's also a paper on multi-party channels that use PTLCs instead of the current HTLCs (haven't read that paper yet so I can't tell you what's special about PTLCs that make that paper possible)
reply
300 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 15 Aug
The PTLC one sounds vaguely familiar. I think it had to make a ton of tradeoffs to limit an intractable number of pre-signed txs.
The paper I started reading was using timouts and every LN transaction was actually creating a valid Bitcoin transaction with a shorter timeout with the theory being that the shortest timeout transaction would be mined on-chain before any of the older states.
Oh interesting. I hadn't thought about doing more with time-iterated games. Time is one of few trust-minimized levers we have for this stuff though.
reply