d amount is 2 units but the total channel
>> capacity is 12 units:
>> >>
>> >> * Bob owns 0 units: no Bob outputs
>> >> * Bob owns 1 unit: Bob has a CLTV-encumbered output of 1 unit
>> >> * Bob owns 2 units: Bob has a CLTV-encumbered output of 2 unit
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 5:47 PM Bastien TEINTURIER wrote:
>
> If Alice pays for a 10 000 sats lease, we only want those 10 000 sats
> to be encumbered with a CLTV. But this is actually not enforceable. We
> could create a separate output in the commitment transaction with the
> lea
Good morning list,
I've been thinking a lot about liquidity ads recently, and I want to
highlight some subtleties that should be taken into account in the
protocol design. This is a rather long post, but I believe this is
important to make sure we get it right and strike the right balance
be
t of 2 units
> >> * Bob owns 3 units (assuming 1 unit is above dust limit): Bob has:
> >> * A CLTV-encumbered output of 2 units
> >> * An ordinary output of 1 unit
> >> * etc.
> >>
> >> This locks up only the agreed-upon amount but lets Bob keep an
eased_owed` buckets,
> one
> >>> > per lease. How do we order them, to decide from which bucket we take
> >>> > funds first? I think the option that makes the most sense is to order
> >>> > them by lease expiry (not by lease start or lease amount, which could
>
he total Bob-owned amount, with a CLTV on up to
>>> >> the amount that was purchased and the rest (if above dust limit) without
>>> >> a CLTV?"
>>> >>
>>> >> so e.g. if the purchased amount is 2 units but the total channel
>>
matching the lease
> >>>> >>> > - if `to_local` is greater than dust, create a corresponding
> output
> >>>> >>> > without any CLTV lease
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> Neat idea. This cha
or one week
>> >>> >
>> >>> > We thus have three concurrent leases, with overlapping lease
>> durations.
>> >>> > That's costly for the channel initiator, because we must add three
>> new
>> >>> > outputs to the co
ly my original idea as then any funds Alice wants
> to add would be in a separate, unencumbered channel.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
>
> Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
>
> On Friday, December 1st, 2023 at 5:45 PM, Bastien TEINTURIER <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
&g
;> >>> > the `update_fulfill_htlc` updates before the `update_fail_htlc`
>>> ones,
>>> >>> > because we need to start by updating `to_local_leased_owed`. I
>>> believe
>>> >>> > that works, but it needs more analysis. Please tr
lice wants to add
would be in a separate, unencumbered channel.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
On Friday, December 1st, 2023 at 5:45 PM, Bastien TEINTURIER
wrote:
> Good morning list,
>
> I've been thinking a lot about liquidity ads recently, and I
>
>> This locks up only the agreed-upon amount but lets Bob keep any amount above
>> the rest.
>>
>> Alternately, only allow CLTV-locking if the buyer is not providing its own
>> funds (i.e. pure inbound purchase).
>> This is still effectively my original ide
gt;>> >>> The question then is really: do operators want to buy/sell X sats of
>>>> >>> inbound flow or Y days of an open channel with an initial inbound
>>>> >>> balance of X sats?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >
13 matches
Mail list logo
