Good morning John Law,
> (at the expense of requiring an on-chain transaction to update > the set of channels created by the factory). Hmmm this kind of loses the point of a factory? By my understanding, the point is that the set of channels can be changed *without* an onchain transaction. Otherwise, it seems to me that factories with this "expense of requiring an on-chain transaction" can be created, today, without even Taproot: * The funding transaction output pays to a simple n-of-n. * The above n-of-n is spent by an *offchain* transaction that splits the funds to the current set of channels. * To change the set of channels, the participants perform this ritual: * Create, but do not sign, an alternate transaction that spends the above n-of-n to a new n-of-n with the same participants (possibly with tweaked keys). * Create and sign, but do not broadcast, a transaction that spends the above alternate n-of-n output and splits it to the new set of channels. * Sign the alternate transaction and broadcast it, this is the on-chain transaction needed to update the set of channels. The above works today without changes to Bitcoin, and even without Taproot (though for large N the witness size does become fairly large without Taproot). The above is really just a "no updates" factory that cuts through its closing transaction with the opening of a new factory. Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
