mimblewimble team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Bi-directional payment channels
sorry, i wasnt clear and im probably still missing something glaringly
obvious with this. The return transaction would be similar to the locktimed
refund talked about in  where there is a nonce/challenge of
e2=H(L||kI2*G+kA2*G) for a locktimed refund. If a payment channel has a
return transaction with a similar challenge at locktime L, a payment
channel tx with a locktime at L-1, then a new return transaction with L-2
would surely make the payment channel tx now redundant ? Do you know where
Im going wrong with this thinking ?
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "at a lower height"...there isn't really any
> way to revoke transactions, in the sense that you want, that I'm aware of.
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 06:21:25PM +0100, Quirinus Quirrell wrote:
> > I was looking at payment channels in mimblewimble and I wasnt clear if
> > could be bi-directional, by revoking transactions. The whitepaper talks
> > about increase value v.
> > I think a transaction in a channel could just be revoked by B signing a
> > return transaction, but at a lower height than the transaction being
> > revoked. New transactions that A signs would be at a decreasing height.
> > Publishing spends would have to be timed carefully, and the size of the
> > channel would gradually shorten, but they have to close anyway...
> > Q
> > --
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble
> > Post to : mimblewimble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble
> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> Andrew Poelstra
> Mathematics Department, Blockstream
> Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
> Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew
> "A goose alone, I suppose, can know the loneliness of geese
> who can never find their peace,
> whether north or south or west or east"
> --Joanna Newsom