rich1.0npub1wtx5qvewc7pd6znlvwktq03mdld05mv3h5dkzfwd3dc30gdmsptsugtuynhttps://nostr.ae/npub1wtx5qvewc7pd6znlvwktq03mdld05mv3h5dkzfwd3dc30gdmsptsugtuynnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2018-10-11 📝 Original message: On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 3:40 AM Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > > * Once we have enough confirmations we merge the channels (either > > automatically or with the next channel update). A new commitment tx is > > being created which now spends each output of each of the two funding tx > > and assigns the channel balance to the channel partners accordingly to > the > > two independent channels. The old commitment txs are being invalidated. > > * The disadvantage is that while splicing is not completed and if the > > funder of the splicing tx is trying to publish an old commitment tx the > > node will only be punished by sending all the funds of the first funding > tx > > to the partner as the special commitment tx of the 2nd output has no > newer > > state yet. > > Yes, this is the alternative method; produce a parallel funding tx > (which only needs to support a single revocation, or could even be done > by a long timeout) and then join them when it reaches the agreed depth. > > It has some elegance; particularly because one side doesn't have to do > any validation or store anything until it's about to splice in. You get > asked for a key and signature, you produce a new one, and sign whatever > tx they want. They hand you back the tx and the key you used once it's > buried far enough, and you check the tx is indeed buried and the output > is the script you're expecting, then you flip the commitment tx. > > But I chose chose not to do this because every transaction commitment > forever will require 2 signatures, and doesn't allow us to forget old > revocation information. > > And it has some strange side-effects: onchain this looks like two > channels; do we gossip about both? We have to figure the limit on > splice-in to make sure the commitment tx stays under 400kSipa. > This is a lot closer to my original proposal for splicing, and I still like it a lot more since the transition from old to new channel is bascially atomic (not having to update state on both pre-splice and post-splice version). The new funds will remain unavailable for the same time, and since we allow only one concurrent splice in your proposal we don't even lose any additional time regarding the splice-outs. So pulling the splice_add_input and splice_add_output up to signal the intent of adding funds to a splice. Splice_all_added is then used to start moving the funds to a pre-allocated 2-of-2 output where the funds can mature. Once the funds are matured (e.g., 6 confirmations) we can start the transition: both parties claim the funding output, and the pre-allocated funds, to create a new funding tx which is immediately broadcast, and we flip over to the new channel state. No need to keep parallel state and then disambiguating which one it was. The downsides of this is that we now have 2 on-chain transactions (pre-allocation and re-open), and splice-outs are no longer immediate if we have a splice-in in the changeset as well. The latter can be remediatet with one more reanchor that just considers splice-ins that were proposed. > > > I believe splicing out is even safer: > > * One just creates a spent of the funding tx which has two outputs. One > > output goes to the recipient of the splice out operation and the second > > output acts as a new funding transaction for the newly spliced channel. > > Once signatures for the new commitment transaction are exchanged > (basically > > following the protocol to open a channel) the splicing operation can be > > broadcasted. > > > > * The old channel MUST NOT be used anymore but the new channel can be > > operational right away without blockchain confirmation. In case someone > > tries to publish an old state of the old channel it will be a double > spent > > of the splicing operation and in the worst case will be punished and the > > splicing was not successful. > > > > if one publishes an old state of the new > > channel everything will just work as normal even if the funding tx is not > > yet mined. It could only be replaced with an old state of the previous > > channel (which as we saw is not a larger risk than the usual operation > of a > > lightning node) > > Right, you're relying on CPFP pushing through the splice-out tx if it > gets stuck. This requires that we check carefully for standardness and > other constraints which might prevent this; for example, we can't allow > more than 20 (?) of these in a row without being sufficiently buried > since I think that's where CPFP calculations top out. > We shouldn't allow more than one pending splice operation anyway, as stated in your proposal initially. We are already critically reliant on our transaction being confirmed on-chain, so I don't see this as much of an added issue. > > As mentioned maybe you had this workflow already in your mind but I don't > > see why we need to send around all the messages twice with my workflow. > We > > only need to maintain double state but only until it is fair / safe to do > > so. I would also believe that with my approach it should be possible (but > > not really necessary) to have multiple splicing operations in parallel. > > The extra sigs are only needed in transition, though; once splicing is > over the channel looks exactly like a newly created one, which is nice. > I'm less worried about the bandwidth overhead, rather the parallel state updates are error prone and there might be corner-cases that we simply don't see right now. Having parallel state-updates just for the sake of saving some on-chain fees (fees that we'd spend in purely on-chain cases anyway) has a direct impact on the channel state machine. > > One other question: What happens to the short_channel_id of a channel to > > which founds have been spliced in? > > In the parallel splice world, they look like two channels. In my > proposal it looks like a new channel, with a channel_update to make sure > modern nodes know that the transition is happening. > With the pre-allocation the final effect is the same, we've just pulled some of the waiting time above the re-anchoring and added one more TX. This is one of the cases where a simpler solution (relatively speaking ^^) is to be preferred imho, allowing for future iterations. Cheers, Christian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20181011/f7fa9632/attachment.html>