Hi Dave, Yes, exactly.
The figures and the descriptions that accompany them are correct, but the initial text description had an error. Regards, John Sent with Proton Mail secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Sunday, September 24th, 2023 at 2:40 PM, David A. Harding <d...@dtrt.org> wrote: > 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
