pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @gd OP 18 Jan \ parent \ on: Scaling LN routing with Chaumian eCash lightning
I’m not advocating for untrusted parties to form federations. I’m more so exploring the idea of trusted parties forming routing federations for greater network reach and higher liquidity efficiency between them.
write
preview
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @nerd2ninja 18 Jan
An n-of-n multi-party channel is still better in that case.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @gd OP 18 Jan
What benefits would the n-of-n multi-party channel give us over the eCash style?
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @nerd2ninja 18 Jan
Well its n-of-n (so no signatory collusion) with unilateral exit. Even if you assume a trusted multi-party channel, if almost all members of the multi-party channel became uncoorperative (died, went offline, what have you) you can still exit (get your funds out) without them. Even if you assume a pretty bad multi-party channel where you're using current day mainnet and with no justice transactions (because you trust so much) the unilateral exit is still relevant.
There is a multi-party channel proposals that do have justice transactions by the way, just want to put that out there: https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/918.pdf
AND when you build all of that out, you don't have to build an interoperability layer or convince the network to use a different routing mechanism like you guys were talking about in another comment
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @gd OP 18 Jan freebie
Hmm, my understanding is that the all signatories must sign all transactions in a n-of-n. So there is no unilateral exit and a single signatory has the ability to censor a given transaction. Isn't that what gives immunity to signatory collusion?