On 2023-09-17 18:14, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Let A_1 ... A_n denote a large number of casual users, let B be a
dedicated user, and let E denote some fixed time in the future.
User B creates a timeout-tree with expiry E where:
* leaf i has an output that funds a Lightning channel owned by A_i
and B, and
* after time E, each non-leaf output in the covenant tree can also be
spent by user B without having to meet the conditions of the covenant.
I think, based solely on the description above, that it is not safe
for dedicated user `B` to create this, unless it gets a signature from
`A_i`.
The alternative is to also infect the leaf itself with a lifetime
`(A_i && B) || (B && CLTV)`.
[...] then `B` can dedicate that leaf output to a separate 1-input
1-output transaction that takes the `(A_i && B)` branch and spends to
a plain `A && B` Lightning channel.
Good morning, ZmnSCPxj.
FYI: what you call an alternative is what appears to be shown in the
paper in the diagram on page 6 and described in the text on page 7.
-Dave
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
