Olaoluwa Osuntokun [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2020-03-30 📝 Original message: Hi y'all, We've been ...
📅 Original date posted:2020-03-30
📝 Original message:
Hi y'all,
We've been discussing the current state of the spec and implementation
readiness of anchor outputs for a few week now on IRC. As detailed
conversations are at times difficult to have on IRC, and there's no true
history, I figured I'd start a new discussion thread where we can hammer out
the final details.
First, on the current state of implementation. Anchor outputs are now fully
supported in the master branch of lnd. A user can opt into this new format
by specifying a new command line parameter: --protocol.anchors (off by
default). Nodes running with this flag will use the feature bit 1337 for
negotiation. We didn't use the range above 65k, as we realized that would
result in rather large init messages. This feature will be included in our
upcoming 0.10 release, which will be entering the release mandate phase in
the next week or two. We also plan to add an entry in the wiki declaring our
usage of this feature bit.
Anchors in lnd implement the spec as is currently defined: two anchors at
all times, with each anchor utilizing 330 satoshis.
During the last spec meeting, the following concerns were raised about
having two anchors at all times (compared to one and re-using the to_remote)
output:
1. two anchors adds extra bytes to the commitment transaction, increasing
the
fee burden for force closing
2. two anchors pollutes the UTXO set, so instead one anchor (for the force
closing party) should be present, while the other party re-uses their
to_remote output for this purpose
In response to the first concern: it is indeed the case that these new
commitments are more expensive, but they're only _slightly_ so. The new
default commitment weight is as if there're two HTLCs at all times on the
commitment transaction. Adding in the extra anchor cost (660 satoshis) is a
false equivalence as both parties are able to recover these funds if they
chose. It's also the case that force cases in the ideal case are only due to
nodes needing to go on-chain to sweep HTLCs, so the extra bytes may be
dwarfed by several HTLCs, particularly in a post MPP/AMP world. The extra
cost may seem large (relatively) when looking at a 1 sat/byte commitment
transaction. However, fees today in the system are on the rise, and if one
is actually in a situation where they need to resolve HTLCs on chain,
they'll likely require a fee rate higher than 1 sat/byte to have their
commitment confirm in a timely manner.
On the topic of UTXO bloat, IMO re-purposing the to_remote output as an
anchor is arguably _worse_, as only a single party in the channel is able to
spend that output in order to remove its impact on the UTXO set. On the
other hand, using two anchors (with their special scripts) allows _anyone_
to sweep these outputs several blocks after the commitment transaction has
confirmed. In order to cover the case where the remote party has no balance,
but a single incoming HTLC, the channel initiator must either create a new
anchor output for this special case (creating a new type of ad-hoc reserve),
or always create a to_remote output for the other party (donating the 330
satoshis). The first option reduces down to having two anchors once again,
while the second option creates an output which is likely uneconomical to
sweep in isolation (compared to anchors which can be swept globally in the
system taking advantage of the input aggregation savings).
The final factor to consider is if we wish to properly re-introduce a CSV
delay to the to_remote party in an attempt to remedy some game theoretical
issues w.r.t forcing one party to close early without a cost to the
instigator. In the past we made some headway in this direction, but then
reverted our changes as we discoverers some previously unknown gaming
vectors even with a symmetrical delay. If we keep two anchor as is, then we
leave this thread open to a comprehensive solution, as the dual anchor
format is fully decoupled from the rest of the commitment.
Circling back to our implementation, we're ready to deploy what we have as
is. In the future, if the scheme changes, then we'll be able to easily
update all our users, as we're also concurrently working on a dynamic
commitment update protocol. By dynamic I mean that users will be able to
update their commitment type on the fly, compared to being locked into a
commitment type when the channel opens as is today.
Would love to hear y'alls thoughts on the two primary concerns laid out
above, and my response to them, thanks!
-- Laolu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20200330/466a001f/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:
Hi y'all,
We've been discussing the current state of the spec and implementation
readiness of anchor outputs for a few week now on IRC. As detailed
conversations are at times difficult to have on IRC, and there's no true
history, I figured I'd start a new discussion thread where we can hammer out
the final details.
First, on the current state of implementation. Anchor outputs are now fully
supported in the master branch of lnd. A user can opt into this new format
by specifying a new command line parameter: --protocol.anchors (off by
default). Nodes running with this flag will use the feature bit 1337 for
negotiation. We didn't use the range above 65k, as we realized that would
result in rather large init messages. This feature will be included in our
upcoming 0.10 release, which will be entering the release mandate phase in
the next week or two. We also plan to add an entry in the wiki declaring our
usage of this feature bit.
Anchors in lnd implement the spec as is currently defined: two anchors at
all times, with each anchor utilizing 330 satoshis.
During the last spec meeting, the following concerns were raised about
having two anchors at all times (compared to one and re-using the to_remote)
output:
1. two anchors adds extra bytes to the commitment transaction, increasing
the
fee burden for force closing
2. two anchors pollutes the UTXO set, so instead one anchor (for the force
closing party) should be present, while the other party re-uses their
to_remote output for this purpose
In response to the first concern: it is indeed the case that these new
commitments are more expensive, but they're only _slightly_ so. The new
default commitment weight is as if there're two HTLCs at all times on the
commitment transaction. Adding in the extra anchor cost (660 satoshis) is a
false equivalence as both parties are able to recover these funds if they
chose. It's also the case that force cases in the ideal case are only due to
nodes needing to go on-chain to sweep HTLCs, so the extra bytes may be
dwarfed by several HTLCs, particularly in a post MPP/AMP world. The extra
cost may seem large (relatively) when looking at a 1 sat/byte commitment
transaction. However, fees today in the system are on the rise, and if one
is actually in a situation where they need to resolve HTLCs on chain,
they'll likely require a fee rate higher than 1 sat/byte to have their
commitment confirm in a timely manner.
On the topic of UTXO bloat, IMO re-purposing the to_remote output as an
anchor is arguably _worse_, as only a single party in the channel is able to
spend that output in order to remove its impact on the UTXO set. On the
other hand, using two anchors (with their special scripts) allows _anyone_
to sweep these outputs several blocks after the commitment transaction has
confirmed. In order to cover the case where the remote party has no balance,
but a single incoming HTLC, the channel initiator must either create a new
anchor output for this special case (creating a new type of ad-hoc reserve),
or always create a to_remote output for the other party (donating the 330
satoshis). The first option reduces down to having two anchors once again,
while the second option creates an output which is likely uneconomical to
sweep in isolation (compared to anchors which can be swept globally in the
system taking advantage of the input aggregation savings).
The final factor to consider is if we wish to properly re-introduce a CSV
delay to the to_remote party in an attempt to remedy some game theoretical
issues w.r.t forcing one party to close early without a cost to the
instigator. In the past we made some headway in this direction, but then
reverted our changes as we discoverers some previously unknown gaming
vectors even with a symmetrical delay. If we keep two anchor as is, then we
leave this thread open to a comprehensive solution, as the dual anchor
format is fully decoupled from the rest of the commitment.
Circling back to our implementation, we're ready to deploy what we have as
is. In the future, if the scheme changes, then we'll be able to easily
update all our users, as we're also concurrently working on a dynamic
commitment update protocol. By dynamic I mean that users will be able to
update their commitment type on the fly, compared to being locked into a
commitment type when the channel opens as is today.
Would love to hear y'alls thoughts on the two primary concerns laid out
above, and my response to them, thanks!
-- Laolu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20200330/466a001f/attachment.html>;