ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-08-20 📝 Original message:Good morning Greg, > Hi ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-08-20
📝 Original message:Good morning Greg,
> Hi James,
> Could you elaborate on a L2 contract where speedy
> settlement of the "first part" can be done, while having the rest
> take their time? I'm more thinking about time-out based protocols.
>
> Naturally my mind drifts to LN, where getting the proper commitment
> transaction confirmed in a timely fashion is required to get the proper
> balances back. The one hitch is that for HTLCs you still need speedy
> resolution otherwise theft can occur. And given today's "layered
> commitment" style transaction where HTLCs are decoupled from
> the balance output timeouts, I'm not sure this can save much.
As I understand it, layered commitments can be modified to use `OP_CTV`, which would be slightly smaller (need only to reveal a 32-byte `OP_CTV` hash on the witness instead of a 64-byte Taproot signature, or 73-byte classical pre-Taproot ECDSA signature), and is in fact precisely an example of the speedy settlement style.
> CTV style commitments have popped up in a couple places in my
> work on eltoo(emulated via APO sig-in-script), but mostly in the
> context of reducing interactivity in protocols, not in byte savings per se.
In many offchain cases, all channel participants would agree to some pre-determined set of UTXOs, which would be implemented as a transaction spending some single UTXO and outputting the pre-determined set of UTXOs.
The single UTXO can be an n-of-n of all participants, so that all agree by contributing their signatures:
* Assuming Taproot, the output address itself is 33 bytes (x4 weight).
* The n-of-n multisignature is 64 witness bytes (x1 weight).
Alternatly the single UTXO can be a P2WSH that reveals an `OP_CTV`:
* The P2WSH is 33 bytes (x4 weight) --- no savings here.
* The revelation of the `<hash> OP_CTV` is 33 witness bytes (x1 weight).
Thus, as I understand it, `OP_CTV` can (almost?) always translate to a small weight reduction for such "everyone agrees to this set of UTXOs" for all offchain protocols that would require it.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
📝 Original message:Good morning Greg,
> Hi James,
> Could you elaborate on a L2 contract where speedy
> settlement of the "first part" can be done, while having the rest
> take their time? I'm more thinking about time-out based protocols.
>
> Naturally my mind drifts to LN, where getting the proper commitment
> transaction confirmed in a timely fashion is required to get the proper
> balances back. The one hitch is that for HTLCs you still need speedy
> resolution otherwise theft can occur. And given today's "layered
> commitment" style transaction where HTLCs are decoupled from
> the balance output timeouts, I'm not sure this can save much.
As I understand it, layered commitments can be modified to use `OP_CTV`, which would be slightly smaller (need only to reveal a 32-byte `OP_CTV` hash on the witness instead of a 64-byte Taproot signature, or 73-byte classical pre-Taproot ECDSA signature), and is in fact precisely an example of the speedy settlement style.
> CTV style commitments have popped up in a couple places in my
> work on eltoo(emulated via APO sig-in-script), but mostly in the
> context of reducing interactivity in protocols, not in byte savings per se.
In many offchain cases, all channel participants would agree to some pre-determined set of UTXOs, which would be implemented as a transaction spending some single UTXO and outputting the pre-determined set of UTXOs.
The single UTXO can be an n-of-n of all participants, so that all agree by contributing their signatures:
* Assuming Taproot, the output address itself is 33 bytes (x4 weight).
* The n-of-n multisignature is 64 witness bytes (x1 weight).
Alternatly the single UTXO can be a P2WSH that reveals an `OP_CTV`:
* The P2WSH is 33 bytes (x4 weight) --- no savings here.
* The revelation of the `<hash> OP_CTV` is 33 witness bytes (x1 weight).
Thus, as I understand it, `OP_CTV` can (almost?) always translate to a small weight reduction for such "everyone agrees to this set of UTXOs" for all offchain protocols that would require it.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj