On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 01:59:14AM +0000, ZmnSCPxj wrote: > > If codeseparator is too scary, you could probably also just always > > require the locktime (ie for settlmenet txs as well as update txs), ie: > > OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP > > <muSig(A_u,B_u)> OP_CHECKDLSVERIFY <Q> OP_CHECKDLS > > and have update txs set their timelock; and settlement txs set a absolute > > timelock, relative timelock via sequence, and commit to the script code. > > I think the issue I have here is the lack of `OP_CSV` in the settlement > branch.
You can enforce the relative timelock in the settlement branch simply by refusing to sign a settlement tx that doesn't have the timelock set; the OP_CSV is redundant. > Consider a channel with offchain transactions update-1, settlement-1, > update-2, and settlement-2. > If update-1 is placed onchain, update-1 is also immediately spendable by > settlement-1. settlement-1 was signed by you, and when you signed it you ensured that nsequence was set as per BIP-68, and NOINPUT sigs commit to nsequence, so if anyone changed that after the fact the sig isn't valid. Because BIP-68 is enforced by consensus, update-1 isn't immediately spendable by settlement-1. Cheers, aj _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightningfirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev