On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 09:58:45AM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote,
on behalf of John Law:
> I'd like to propose an alternative to BIP-118 [1] that is both safer and more
> powerful. The proposal is called Inherited IDs (IIDs) and is described in a
> paper that can be found here [2]. [...]
Pretty sure I've skimmed this before but hadn't given it a proper look.
Saying "X is more powerful" and then saying it can't actually do the
same stuff as the thing it's "more powerful" than always strikes me as
a red flag. Anyhoo..
I think the basic summary is that you add to each utxo a new resettable
"structural" tx id called an "iid" and indetify input txs that way when
signing, so that if the details of the transaction changes but not the
structure, the signature remains valid.
In particular, if you've got a tx with inputs tx1:n1, tx2:n2, tx3:n3, etc;
and outputs out1, out2, out3, etc, then its structual id is hash(iid(tx1),
n1) if any of its outputs are "tagged" and it's not a coinbase tx, and
otherwise it's just its txid. (The proposed tagging is to use a segwit
v2 output in the tx, though I don't think that's an essential detail)
So if you have a tx A with 3 outputs, then tx B spends "A:0, A:1" and
tx C spends "B:0" and tx D spends "C:0", if you replace B with B',
then if both B and B' were tagged, and the signatures for C (and D,
assuming C was tagged) will still be valid for spending from B'.
So the question is what you can do with that.
The "2stage" protocol is proposed as an alternative to eltoo is
essentially just:
a) funding tx gets dropped to the chain
b) closing state is proposed by one party
c) other party can immediately finalise by confirming a final state
that matches the proposed closing state, or was after it
d) if the other party's not around for whatever delay, the party that
proposed the close can finalise it
That doesn't work for more than two participants, because two of
the participants could collude to take the fast path in (c) with some
earlier state, robbing any other participants. That said, this is a fine
protocol for two participants, and might be better than doing the full
eltoo arrangement if you only have a two participant channel.
To make channel factories work in this model, I think the key step is
using invalidation trees to allow updating the split of funds between
groups of participants. I think invalidation trees introduce a tradeoff
between (a) how many updates you can make, and (b) how long you have to
notice a close is proposed and correct it, before an invalidated state
can be posted, and (c) how long it will take to be able to extract your
funds from the factory if there are problems initially. You reduce those
delays substantially (to a log() factor) by introducing a hierarchy of
update txs (giving you a log() number of txs), I think.
That's the "multisig factories" section anyway, if I'm
following correctly. The "timeout trees", "update-forest" and
"challenge-and-response" approaches both introduce a trusted user ("the
operator"), I think, so are perhaps more comparable to statechains
than eltoo?
So how does that compare, in my opinion?
If you consider special casing two-party channels with eltoo, then I
think eltoo-2party and 2stage are equally effective. Comparing
eltoo-nparty and the multisig iid factories approach, I think the
uncooperative case looks like:
ms-iid:
log(n) txs (for the invalidation tree)
log(n) time (?) (for the delays to ensure invalidated states don't
get published)
eltoo: 1 tx from you
1 block after you notice, plus the fixed csv delay
A malicious counterparty can post many old update states prior to you
poisting the latest state, but those don't introduce extra csv delays
and you aren't paying the fees for those states, so I don't think it
makes sense to call that an O(n) delay or cost.
An additional practical problem with lightning is dealing with layered
commitments; that's a problem both for the delays while waiting for a
potential rejection in 2stage and for the invalidation tree delays in the
factory construction. But it's not a solved problem for eltoo yet, either.
As far as implementation goes, introducing the "iid" concept would mean
that info would need to be added to the utxo database -- if every utxo
got an iid, that would be perhaps a 1.4GB increase to the utxo db (going
by unique transaction rather than unique output), but presumably iid txs
would end up being both uncommon and short-lived, so the cost is probably
really mostly just in the additional complexity. Both iid and ANYPREVOUT
require changes to how signatures are evaluated and apps that use the
new feature are written, but ANYPREVOUT doesn't need changes beyond that.
(Also, the description of OP_CODESEPARATOR (footnote 13 on page 13,
ominous!) doesn't match its implementation in taproot. It also says BIP
118 introduces a new address type for floating transactions, but while
this was floated on the list, the current draft of 118 just introduces
a new tapscript key type for normal taproot addresses)
I think you can pretty easily simulate this construction with
anyprevout. Where you would have had A:1 spent by B, and B:2 and B:3
spent by C, change the derivation paths for the keys a1, b2, and b3
to append "/1", "/1/2" and "/1/3" and don't reuse them, and sign with
anyprevout when constructing B and C and any replacement transactions
for B and C. So I don't think this allows any new constructions that
anyprevout wouldn't.
Cheers,
aj
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
