Good morning John Law,
> (at the expense of requiring an on-chain transaction to update
> the set of channels created by the factory).
Hmmm this kind of loses the point of a factory?
By my understanding, the point is that the set of channels can be changed
*without* an onchain transaction.
Otherwise, it seems to me that factories with this "expense of requiring an
on-chain transaction" can be created, today, without even Taproot:
* The funding transaction output pays to a simple n-of-n.
* The above n-of-n is spent by an *offchain* transaction that splits the funds
to the current set of channels.
* To change the set of channels, the participants perform this ritual:
* Create, but do not sign, an alternate transaction that spends the above
n-of-n to a new n-of-n with the same participants (possibly with tweaked keys).
* Create and sign, but do not broadcast, a transaction that spends the above
alternate n-of-n output and splits it to the new set of channels.
* Sign the alternate transaction and broadcast it, this is the on-chain
transaction needed to update the set of channels.
The above works today without changes to Bitcoin, and even without Taproot
(though for large N the witness size does become fairly large without Taproot).
The above is really just a "no updates" factory that cuts through its closing
transaction with the opening of a new factory.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
