{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2h","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2h","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2023-01-04\n🗒️ Summary of this message: A proposal for using a covenant to establish a channel without an expiry date, allowing it to be a first-class citizen among channels.\n📝 Original message:\nOn Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:06:36PM +1100, Lloyd Fournier wrote:\n\u003e The advantage of using a covenant\n\u003e is that the channel would not have an expiry date and therefore be a first\n\u003e class citizen among channels.\n\nI think the approach here would be:\n\n * receive funds on the in-potentiam address with 8000 block CSV\n * LSP tracks immediately\n * user's wallet wakes up, LSP reports address to user, user signs\n   a funding tx to establish the channel, and the state 0 close tx\n * LSP considers it immediately active\n * LSP broadcasts the tx, targeting confirmation within 3 days\n * if the funding tx confirms promptly, you just have an ordinary channel\n * after 800 blocks, if the tx hasn't confirmed, LSP fee bumps or\n   closes the channel (relying on the high-feerate unilateral close\n   tx to do the fee bumping)\n\nie:\n\n day 0: someone -\u003e in-potentiam address (payment made on-chain, confirmed)\n\n day 7: in-potentiam -\u003e funding (wallet wakes up, tx signed and broadcast,\n          not necessarily confirmed, channel active)\n\n day 12: in-potentiam -\u003e funding (confirmed)\n\n day 9999: funding -\u003e unilateral/cooperative close\n\nor:\n\n day 0: someone -\u003e in-potentiam address (payment made on-chain, confirmed)\n\n day 14: LSP forgets about in-potentiam utxo as its expiry is only 1000\n         blocks away\n\n day 420: in-potentiam -\u003e wherever (payment made on-chain by user)\n\nSo while the tx introspection approach you advocate *would* allow the\nsetup phase to skip the \"expiry on day 14\" restriction, I think the\n*bigger* benefit is that you also wouldn't need the on-chain \"in-potentiam\n-\u003e funding\" transaction, but could instead just leave the in-potentiam\ntx on chain indefinitely, until it was time to close the channel (which,\nif it was a cooperative close, could just be a musig key path spend).\n\nEither approach probably implies that you either have multiple channels\nwith your LSP (one for each in-potentiam payment you receive), or\nthat your single channel with your LSP is backed by multiple UTXOs\n(maybe you choose an order for them, so that Alice owns 100% of the\nbalance in utxos 1..(k-1) and Bob owns 100% of the balance in utxos\n(k+1)..n?). Otherwise you'd need an on-chain tx anyway to splice the new\nfunds into your existing channel; and that seems both annoying of itself,\nand probably bad for privacy.\n\nCheers,\naj"}