Skip to content

Deterministic points#862

Closed
rustyrussell wants to merge 2 commits into
lightning:masterfrom
rustyrussell:deterministic-points
Closed

Deterministic points#862
rustyrussell wants to merge 2 commits into
lightning:masterfrom
rustyrussell:deterministic-points

Conversation

@rustyrussell
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Built on top of @niftynei 's https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/851/commits, this alters that protocol to use @LLFourn's deterministic points.

This is useful, because splice wants to change the points, and now it's as easy as updating the generation.

niftynei and others added 2 commits March 3, 2021 15:47
This commit adds the interactive transaction construction protcol, as
well as the first practical example of using it, v2 of channel
establishment.

Note that for v2 we also update the channel_id, which now uses the hash
of the revocation_basepoints. We move away from using the funding
transaction id, as the introduction of RBF* makes it such that a single
channel may have many funding transaction id's over the course of
its lifetime.

*Later, also splicing
Using a scheme derived from Lloyd Fournier's:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-December/002907.html

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
@rustyrussell rustyrussell marked this pull request as draft April 20, 2021 07:10
@rustyrussell
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

After careful consideration, I am withdrawing this. The issue is that it is no longer possible to have separate secret keys for each channel: a compromise of one channel's keys would compromise the others. That isn't a security requirement right now, but it's definitely a valid security model: you can hold all your own channels' keys and contain the damage that can be done. c-lightning early on operated in this manner, for example.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants