Good morning aj, I certainly agree. I hope that PSBT support becomes much, much, much more widespread.
Regards, ZmnSCPxj Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:04 PM, Anthony Towns <a...@erisian.com.au> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:47:38AM +0000, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > A boutique protocol would reduce the number of existing onchain wallets > > that could be integrated in such UI. > > Seems like PSBT would be a sufficient protocol: > > 0) lightning node generates a PSBT for a new channel, > with no inputs and a single output of the 2-of-2 address > > 1. wallet funds the PSBT but doesn't sign it, adding a change address > if necessary, and could combine with other tx's bustapay style > > 2. lightning determines txid from PSBT, and creates update/settlement > tx's for funding tx so funds can be recovered > > 3. wallet signs and publishes the PSBT > 4. lightning sees tx on chain and channel is open > > That's a bit more convoluted than "(0) lightning generates an address and > value, and creates NOINPUT update/settlement tx's for that address/value; > (1) wallet funds address to exactly that value; (2) lightning monitors > blockchain for payment to that address" of course. > > But it avoids letting users get into the habit of passing NOINPUT > addresses around, or the risk of a user typo'ing the value and losing > money immediately, and it has the benefit that the wallet can tweak the > value if (eg) that avoids a change address or enhances privacy (iirc, > c-lightning tweaks payment values for that reason). If the channel's > closed cooperatively, it also avoids ever needing to publish a NOINPUT > sig (or NOINPUT tagged output). > > Does that seem a fair trade off? > > Cheers, > aj > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
