US Government’s SECRET PLAN to KILL Bitcoin! I didn’t think it was too bad, but the one key difference here is that for the payment channels with penalties as currently designed, it’s necessitating that you store these secret nonces forever until channel close. And in the interim, you can reduce your exposure by essentially reducing the amount of HTLC exposure you have in total, which is a configurable parameter, which I think all implementations do now. I’m not sure what the consensus is right now. And I’m curious how Lightning engineers are thinking about taproot and MuSig2 related channels and how the audience should think about their nearer term uses in Lightning, in contrast to something that I think a lot of Bitcoin hopefuls are thinking about, which is Point Time Locked Contracts (PTLCs) involving schnorr signatures and adaptor signatures. I think we’re going to stick to a simple version, where you allow pointing to any type of output to pay for your channel. Can the channel stay open when the UTXO gets spent?
I think this is still going to be different for later, and we are just going to be allowing any kind of UTXO in your channel announcement that has to match the capacity of the channel that you are announcing. So, I think we are why not check here going to do that in the short term. So, will we need to be keeping track of the UTXO actually not being moved while it is the stand-in to have announced the channel? And on the other hand, how do you make sure that the same UTXO is not reused for the announcement; and what happens if that UTXO gets spent? And that would be nice, very nice for privacy, but it’s hard to decide what the multiplier would be, it’s hard to decide how we will make the proofs and how we will make sure that the proofs cannot be reused. So, just moving the funding transactions to use MuSig2 already has a very nice benefit for all users, and it’s a good way to start experimenting with taproot with MuSig2 before moving on to PTLC. We would have the opportunity to just reject some of the updates without force closing, which is really a nice benefit.
With future updates to the mempool, hopefully we get around that just basically for free, where any channels that have already updated with v3 and ephemeral anchors will benefit from these other background updates as well. Logging in to your account will enable you access to the VPN’s features. Imagine if the market doesn’t go well, and the price hits $80, then a stop loss will be executed and at the same time take profit will be cancelled out. And this way, you don’t have to exchange nonces for the MuSig2 output and only the mutual closing and maybe the splices, probably the splices as well, would use the MuSig2 spend path. But with this, this kind of narrowly allows taproot channels as well, but it also opens the door for experimental channels. There’s no serialization format, and there’s strong recommendations against not doing this, right? Bastien Teinturier: Okay, so for now, the first thing we are doing with taproot is just moving the funding transactions, the channel output to use the MuSig2 taproot output. It’s also just a life headache, but it’s a judgment call, because right now, LN kind of works on firm handshakes, nobody’s attacking each other, nobody’s doing channel jamming, but that could all change overnight.
Bastien Teinturier: Sure. So right now, when we announced the channel on the network, we explicitly announced node IDs and the Bitcoin keys that are inside the multisig 2-of-2, and people verified that the output that we are referencing is actually locked with the script hash of multisig 2-of-2 of those two keys, so you can only use it with scripts that really follow the format of Lightning channels without taproot. So basically, it’s kind of a trade-off between the case where your channel partner falls over versus they’re trying to pin you and steal your funds. And basically, there’s some choices to be made there. This question, I guess, is for Murch, Greg or t-bast, but are there other layer 2 protocols that we see having an interest in contributing to some of these discussions? Mike Schmidt: Murch, you good to wrap up this first bullet? I thought in my head, they’ll probably pick a better protocol by the time it actually would be required and ends up being true, so that’s good news. But odds are you haven’t heard much, or thought much, about that technology. I haven’t seen a lot of contribution from those projects, aside from having open dialogues.