Hi Christian,
That's not as bad a tradeoff as people usually interpret, the DMC
construction has parameters that allow tweaking the number of
invalidations, and with parameters similar to LN we can have 1.4 billion
updates. Which is years of operation without need to
re-anchor. In addition penaltyless invalidation has a number of
advantages,
As far as I understand, long-lasting DMCs require either:
(a) an initial Refund transaction with a very distant relative
locktime
(b) periodic updates in the form of a Refund transaction pointing
to a new Refund transaction resetting initial the locktime, instead of
actually refunding.
For an extreme case of (a), if one party goes unresponsive and
decides not to sign new commitments then the counterparty in the DMC
will have its funds locked for a significant amount of time, without
penalising the unresponsive party. In the extreme case of (b), either if
as a result of a malicious, unresponsive, or honest participant, each
new refund transaction that resets the refunds may end up hitting the
blockchain, which means the worst-case utility of the channel itself
decreasing due to accumulative blockchain fees. Is this the trade-off
you speak of? if so, can you point at any resource where this trade-off
is tackled to get worst-case utility similar to that of LN channels?
Best,
Alejandro.
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
