Christian Decker [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-10-13 📝 Original message: Great find ZmnSCPxj, we ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-10-13
📝 Original message:
Great find ZmnSCPxj, we can also have an adaptive scheme here, in which we
start with a single update transaction, and then at ~90% of the available
range we add a second. This is starting to look a bit like the DMC
invalidation tree :-)
But realistically speaking I don't think 1B updates is going to be
exhausted any time soon, but the adaptive strategy gets the best of
both worlds.
Cheers,
Christian
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:21 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
> Another way would be to always have two update transactions, effectively
> creating a larger overall counter:
>
> [anchor] -> [update highbits] -> [update lobits] -> [settlement]
>
> We normally update [update lobits] until it saturates. If lobits
> saturates we increment [update highbits] and reset [update lobits] to the
> lowest valid value.
>
> This will provide a single counter with 10^18 possible updates, which
> should be enough for a while even without reanchoring.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com>; Secure Email.
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Friday, October 12, 2018 1:37 AM, Christian Decker <
> decker.christian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Anthony for pointing this out, I was not aware we could
> roll keypairs to reset the state numbers.
>
> I basically thought that 1billion updates is more than I would
> ever do, since with splice-in / splice-out operations we'd be
> re-anchoring on-chain on a regular basis anyway.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:25 AM Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 05:41:38PM +0200, Christian Decker wrote:
>> > eltoo is a drop-in replacement for the penalty based invalidation
>> > mechanism that is used today in the Lightning specification. [...]
>>
>> Maybe this is obvious, but in case it's not, re: the locktime-based
>> sequencing in eltoo:
>>
>> "any number above 0.500 billion is interpreted as a UNIX timestamp, and
>> with a current timestamp of ~1.5 billion, that leaves about 1 billion
>> numbers that are interpreted as being in the past"
>>
>> I think if you had a more than a 1B updates to your channel (50 updates
>> per second for 4 months?) I think you could reset the locktime by rolling
>> over to use new update keys. When unilaterally closing you'd need to
>> use an extra transaction on-chain to do that roll-over, but you'd save
>> a transaction if you did a cooperative close.
>>
>> ie, rather than:
>>
>> [funding] -> [coop close / re-fund] -> [update 23M] -> [HTLCs etc]
>> or
>> [funding] -> [coop close / re-fund] -> [coop close]
>>
>> you could have:
>> [funding] -> [update 1B] -> [update 23,310,561 with key2] -> [HTLCs]
>> or
>> [funding] -> [coop close]
>>
>> You could repeat this when you get another 1B updates, making unilateral
>> closes more painful, but keeping cooperative closes cheap.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> aj
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20181013/92190e1e/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:
Great find ZmnSCPxj, we can also have an adaptive scheme here, in which we
start with a single update transaction, and then at ~90% of the available
range we add a second. This is starting to look a bit like the DMC
invalidation tree :-)
But realistically speaking I don't think 1B updates is going to be
exhausted any time soon, but the adaptive strategy gets the best of
both worlds.
Cheers,
Christian
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:21 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
> Another way would be to always have two update transactions, effectively
> creating a larger overall counter:
>
> [anchor] -> [update highbits] -> [update lobits] -> [settlement]
>
> We normally update [update lobits] until it saturates. If lobits
> saturates we increment [update highbits] and reset [update lobits] to the
> lowest valid value.
>
> This will provide a single counter with 10^18 possible updates, which
> should be enough for a while even without reanchoring.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com>; Secure Email.
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Friday, October 12, 2018 1:37 AM, Christian Decker <
> decker.christian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Anthony for pointing this out, I was not aware we could
> roll keypairs to reset the state numbers.
>
> I basically thought that 1billion updates is more than I would
> ever do, since with splice-in / splice-out operations we'd be
> re-anchoring on-chain on a regular basis anyway.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:25 AM Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 05:41:38PM +0200, Christian Decker wrote:
>> > eltoo is a drop-in replacement for the penalty based invalidation
>> > mechanism that is used today in the Lightning specification. [...]
>>
>> Maybe this is obvious, but in case it's not, re: the locktime-based
>> sequencing in eltoo:
>>
>> "any number above 0.500 billion is interpreted as a UNIX timestamp, and
>> with a current timestamp of ~1.5 billion, that leaves about 1 billion
>> numbers that are interpreted as being in the past"
>>
>> I think if you had a more than a 1B updates to your channel (50 updates
>> per second for 4 months?) I think you could reset the locktime by rolling
>> over to use new update keys. When unilaterally closing you'd need to
>> use an extra transaction on-chain to do that roll-over, but you'd save
>> a transaction if you did a cooperative close.
>>
>> ie, rather than:
>>
>> [funding] -> [coop close / re-fund] -> [update 23M] -> [HTLCs etc]
>> or
>> [funding] -> [coop close / re-fund] -> [coop close]
>>
>> you could have:
>> [funding] -> [update 1B] -> [update 23,310,561 with key2] -> [HTLCs]
>> or
>> [funding] -> [coop close]
>>
>> You could repeat this when you get another 1B updates, making unilateral
>> closes more painful, but keeping cooperative closes cheap.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> aj
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20181013/92190e1e/attachment.html>;