Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-04 Thread ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev
Good morning Rusty and aj, On Monday, November 5, 2018 9:38 AM, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Technically speaking, all that AJ in Australia needs to show is that he or > > she knows, the private key behind the public key that is indicated on the > > invoice. > > Before payment, only the payee

Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-04 Thread Rusty Russell
Anthony Towns writes: > FWIW, I don't see reddit as a particularly viable "court"; there's > no way for reddit to tell who's actually right in a dispute, eg if I > say blockstream didn't send stickers I paid for, and blockstream says > they did; ie there's no need for a sock puppet in the above

Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-04 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 08:04:20PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> > - just send multiple payments with the same hash: > >> > works with sha256 > >> > privacy not improved much (some intermediary nodes no longer know > >> > full invoice value) > >> > can claim partial payments

Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-04 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 01:05:17AM +, ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev wrote: > > And it just doesn't work unless you give over uniquely identifying > > information. AJ posts to r/bitcoin demonstrating payment, demanding his > > goods. Sock puppet says "No, I'm the AJ in Australia" and cut & pastes

Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-04 Thread Rusty Russell
ZmnSCPxj writes: > Good morning Rusty and aj and list, > >> >> > > In the payer-supplied data case, I think 'm' should include a signature >> > > for a key only the payer knows: this lets them prove they made the >> > > payment. >> > >> > I don't object to that, but I think it's unnecessary; as

Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-04 Thread ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev
Good morning Rusty and aj and list, > > > > In the payer-supplied data case, I think 'm' should include a signature > > > for a key only the payer knows: this lets them prove they made the > > > payment. > > > > I don't object to that, but I think it's unnecessary; as long as there > > was a

Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-04 Thread ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev
Good morninh list, Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, November 3, 2018 9:37 AM, ZmnSCPxj wrote: > Good morning Rusty, aj, and list, > > > > - channel announcements: do you support secp256k1 for hashes or just > > > sha256? > > > > > > >

Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-03 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 01:30:48PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > I'm not sure. Jonas Nick proposed a scheme, which very much assumes > Schnorr AFAICT: > Jonas Nick wrote: > > How I thought it would work is that the invoice would contain a > > Schnorr nonce R. (Note this means the "invoice" must

Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-03 Thread Rusty Russell
Anthony Towns writes: >> > - channel announcements: do you support secp256k1 for hashes or just >> >sha256? >> Worse, it becomes "I support secp256k1 with ECDSA" then a new "I support >> secp256k1 with Schnorr". You need a continuous path of channels with >> the same feature. > > I don't

Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-02 Thread Anthony Towns
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 03:45:58PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 10:20:46AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> There's been some discussion of what the lightning payment flow > >> might look like in the future, and I thought I'd try to look

Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-02 Thread Rusty Russell
Anthony Towns writes: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 10:20:46AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: >> There's been some discussion of what the lightning payment flow >> might look like in the future, and I thought I'd try to look forwards so >> we can avoid painting ourselves into a corner now. I

Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-02 Thread ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev
Good morning Rusty, aj, and list, > > - channel announcements: do you support secp256k1 for hashes or just > > sha256? > > > > Worse, it becomes "I support secp256k1 with ECDSA" then a new "I support > secp256k1 with Schnorr". You need a continuous path of channels with > the same

[Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-02 Thread Rusty Russell
Hi all, There's been some discussion of what the lightning payment flow might look like in the future, and I thought I'd try to look forwards so we can avoid painting ourselves into a corner now. I haven't spent time on concrete design and implementation to be sure this is correct,

Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-01 Thread Anthony Towns
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 10:20:46AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > There's been some discussion of what the lightning payment flow > might look like in the future, and I thought I'd try to look forwards so > we can avoid painting ourselves into a corner now. I haven't spent time > on