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

Reply via email to