pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @nerd2ninja 18 Jan \ parent \ on: Scaling LN routing with Chaumian eCash lightning
An n-of-n multi-party channel is still better in that case.
write
preview
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?