mimblewimble team mailing list archive

[Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ah, ok. So you can do this, but

(a) This makes the channels only reducable a small finite number of times
    (and to get more times, you have to lock coins for longer, which is a
    tradeoff)

(b) You can't just reduce by 1 because of the risk of missing blocks or
    miner collusion, you have to reduce by enough that the "L-1" transaction
    can be assured to get in before the "L" transaction becomes valid.

Cheers
Andrew



On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:25:42AM +0100, Quirinus Quirrell wrote:
> 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 [1] 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 ?
> 
> [1] https://lists.launchpad.net/mimblewimble/msg00047.html
> 

-- 
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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature