📅 Original date posted:2017-01-16 📝 Original message: Rusty,I'm on the side ...

Stefano Pepe [ARCHIVE] /

npub1x6a…ur6l

2023-06-09 12:46:57

in reply to nevent1q…ekd9

📅 Original date posted:2017-01-16
📝 Original message:
Rusty,I'm on the side that has given nothing to the code but is following with a lot of attention the evolution of LN and Segwit.We are ready to help.
What can be done in your opinion?

Stefano Pepe
CEO, UniquID Inc.
http://uniquid.com

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 6:39 PM -0800, "Rusty Russell" <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:

"Andrés G. Aragoneses " writes:
> Hi there,
>
> Seems like the list is a bit dormant these days.

Yes, most of the activity has been on the github repository:

https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc

> Is it because of the low chances of SegWit activation given that it stalled
> at ~26%?
>
> On this topic, I would like to ask about the feasibility of LN without
> SegWit, given these circumstances.
>
> Some has been said in the past, I've been reading through the archives. But
> in them, everybody seemed overly enthusiastic about the activation of
> SegWit (maybe given that OP_CLTV and OP_CSV activated without hassle).

If segwit doesn't activate, something is badly broken in Bitcoin. This
is not really a lightning issue; there's been no significant technical
objection to segwit, and it really does make Bitcoin work better.

I'm glad that miners are cautious with their upgrades, and segwit
adoption will take time to roll out across products anyway. Let's look
again in 6 months.

> Which one is more accurate? Is the security problems only related to having
> to watch the blockchain? If yes, why cannot one outsource this job to a
> server (e.g. the hypothetical server of your light-wallet) in level2?

Yes, the problem is outsourcing. You can't hand the outsourcer a
penalty transaction signature if you don't know what the bad transaction
will look like. And if the signatures are part of the transaction ID,
you don't.

Hope that helps,
Rusty.
_______________________________________________
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/20170116/49354ae5/attachment.html>;

Author Public Key

npub1x6alhvhx5awl33egcwxhhfsfmpseudtvrdp4yf3uk3smtu8g7cwsanur6l

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-09 12:46:57

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "730359e056359a5ba12e285a21b8cf108340887fdc35a5d26c09ead74e995e31", "pubkey": "36bbfbb2e6a75df8c728c38d7ba609d8619e356c1b4352263cb461b5f0e8f61d", "created_at": 1686314817, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "02cd730b66f2f7d29b7d845a53195a89be47f201fd29084b2d5d75356a593639", "", "root" ], [ "e", "8a512d3233307b45ab1f2ca0febe245a9925b1ab7998d9d784ce7cd27fe2018f", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-01-16\n📝 Original message:\nRusty,I'm on the side that has given nothing to the code but is following with a lot of attention the evolution of LN and Segwit.We are ready to help. \nWhat can be done in your opinion?\n\nStefano Pepe\nCEO, UniquID Inc.\nhttp://uniquid.com\n\n\n\n\nOn Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 6:39 PM -0800, \"Rusty Russell\" \u003crusty at rustcorp.com.au\u003e wrote:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"Andrés G. Aragoneses \" writes:\n\u003e Hi there,\n\u003e\n\u003e Seems like the list is a bit dormant these days.\n\nYes, most of the activity has been on the github repository:\n\n https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc\n\n\u003e Is it because of the low chances of SegWit activation given that it stalled\n\u003e at ~26%?\n\u003e\n\u003e On this topic, I would like to ask about the feasibility of LN without\n\u003e SegWit, given these circumstances.\n\u003e\n\u003e Some has been said in the past, I've been reading through the archives. But\n\u003e in them, everybody seemed overly enthusiastic about the activation of\n\u003e SegWit (maybe given that OP_CLTV and OP_CSV activated without hassle).\n\nIf segwit doesn't activate, something is badly broken in Bitcoin. This\nis not really a lightning issue; there's been no significant technical\nobjection to segwit, and it really does make Bitcoin work better.\n\nI'm glad that miners are cautious with their upgrades, and segwit\nadoption will take time to roll out across products anyway. Let's look\nagain in 6 months.\n\n\u003e Which one is more accurate? Is the security problems only related to having\n\u003e to watch the blockchain? If yes, why cannot one outsource this job to a\n\u003e server (e.g. the hypothetical server of your light-wallet) in level2?\n\nYes, the problem is outsourcing. You can't hand the outsourcer a\npenalty transaction signature if you don't know what the bad transaction\nwill look like. And if the signatures are part of the transaction ID,\nyou don't.\n\nHope that helps,\nRusty.\n_______________________________________________\nLightning-dev mailing list\nLightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev\n\n\n\n\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20170116/49354ae5/attachment.html\u003e", "sig": "46c64803bf8890fd36a67e30bb5295f8b205c7ea4d14a7f9ffa95dec8b94165a3addc00840a95ec3fb673d957b3e20764bc876206b552c32a952d253d4716dd0" }