1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C415EC75
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:15:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40135.protonmail.ch (mail-40135.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.135])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 134618B0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:15:05 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:15:00 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1568906102;
bh=A5jzuoGM7fmVXWFmZrlJWcUkVq0ebz6lfkfaa5olvNY=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Feedback-ID:
From;
b=OhDxJw5l/ML0xgeg/hBHoDTfCsfhE9mAxI9VJhOLGgh62AKO7AJF4K0hw08du3OcP
ke+t56FEZF9OoRXM06TqF+C4m9O6zJWOnUhshvp+lpo94EkZS5A4W+CFKVA88k2GwL
72Lzy/S9m7LZ5/4Q8so+YK1qwNcAhOPn7C5bMlZE=
To: John Tromp <john.tromp@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <IQ52_xPiESoJFzOk3QzRDJth00dtYquOnBkG3NXrORK0FrmIaCXf0Gxrnv-AYV94Q0sRLt03ejZyhOk3ZMhnPikoIkvG77ZRqhBbl86QucU=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOU__fw11EmAJzay7-H7X3my5+xNGGo_BS6_1hphauPXTgbw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1791.1568888841.8631.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
<CAOU__fw11EmAJzay7-H7X3my5+xNGGo_BS6_1hphauPXTgbw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Timelocks and Lightning on MimbleWimble
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:15:05 -0000
Good morning John,
> > However, I believe that Lightning and similar offchain protocols are no=
t possible on MimbleWimble, at least if we want to retain its "magical shri=
nking blockchain" property.
>
> MimbleWimble can easily incorporate relative lock heights, in addition
> to absolute lock heights. Grin and Beam have included the latter since
> launch.
>
> Grin's proposal for relative lock heights is at [1] with discussion at [2=
].
> Based on these, Grin also has a rough design for payment channels at [3].
>
> Beam included relative lock heights in its recent HardFork [4] and has
> a payment channel design at [5].
>
Thank you for this information.
I am aware that absolute locktimes were possible in MimbleWimble.
However, it does seem to imply that kernels are not compressible (unlike th=
e original MimbleWimble where the kernel is just an empty string and thus n=
ever stored).
So at least for kernels of relative locktimes, are not pruneable and will c=
ontribute to blockchain size.
(I believe I saw some proposal for absolute locktimes that allow some amoun=
t of aggregation/pruning of absolute-locktime kernels from the mimblewimble=
.pdf by andytoshi.)
Which I suppose is my point: you lose some of the "magic shrinking blockcha=
in" property in implementing relative locktimes, as you now increase the da=
ta you have to store forever (i.e. the kernels).
It is not a *total* loss of the "magic shrinking blockchain", I see now, ho=
wever.
Still, it does see worth the cost of accepting having to store kernels fore=
ver in exchange for being able to layer on top of a MimbleWimble blockchain=
.
It seems to me that Poon-Dryja and Decker-Wattenhofer can be "directly" por=
ted over to any MimbleWimble blockchain with relative locktimes.
Reference [5] seems to be Poon-Dryja ported over to using relative locktime=
s for MimbleWimble.
Decker-Russell-Osuntokun ("eltoo") is harder due to the `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` r=
equirement.
I have tried to derive an equivalent to this `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` somehow by c=
onsidering that the "reference to previous kernel" as being akin to the Bit=
coin transaction input referring to a previous output, however it seems to =
be not easy to create a retargatable "reference to previous kernel" in this=
way.
In any case, it seems to me that the loss of SCRIPT does not prevent a Mimb=
leWimble blockchain from using an offchain updateable cryptocurrency system=
.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
