300 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 15 Aug \ parent \ on: Federated VS Decentralized (Don't Call it Decentralized) Deus Lo Vult Edition bitcoin
I'd love to see a working multi-party channel implementation. I feel like I've seen at least three whitepapers with various constructions but all of them required covenant soft-forks iirc. Maybe BitVM fixes them without covenants.
The paper I started reading was using timouts and every LN transaction was actually creating a valid Bitcoin transaction with a shorter timeout with the theory being that the shortest timeout transaction would be mined on-chain before any of the older states.
There's also a paper on multi-party channels that use PTLCs instead of the current HTLCs (haven't read that paper yet so I can't tell you what's special about PTLCs that make that paper possible)
reply
The PTLC one sounds vaguely familiar. I think it had to make a ton of tradeoffs to limit an intractable number of pre-signed txs.
The paper I started reading was using timouts and every LN transaction was actually creating a valid Bitcoin transaction with a shorter timeout with the theory being that the shortest timeout transaction would be mined on-chain before any of the older states.
Oh interesting. I hadn't thought about doing more with time-iterated games. Time is one of few trust-minimized levers we have for this stuff though.
reply