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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble Post to : mimblewimble@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
