Timeline for Does eltoo require trusting watchtowers not to close channels?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 11, 2022 at 4:17 | vote | accept | Vojtěch Strnad | ||
| Jan 11, 2022 at 4:17 | comment | added | Vojtěch Strnad | I believe your answer will be very helpful to people trying to understand eltoo. Thanks a lot! | |
| Jan 10, 2022 at 20:02 | comment | added | Murch♦ | Well, first I read Z-man's proposal three times, because I didn't grok it. I figured I'd explain my understanding of it while it's fresh so others that try to parse the proposal would get a running start. | |
| Jan 10, 2022 at 20:01 | history | edited | Murch♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Explicitly answer actual question
|
| Jan 10, 2022 at 19:59 | comment | added | Murch♦ | Yeah, maybe I went overboard. I actually reread the Eltoo paper almost completely, heh. But yeah, the Watchtower wouldn't have the trigger transaction, because their action would only be necessary when an outdated update transaction had been published. Necessarily, the trigger transaction would have to have preceded an update transaction. In other words, Eltoo watchtowers would not be able to unilaterally initiate a channel closing, but they could publish one or more outdated states if either party initiates unilateral closing. | |
| Jan 9, 2022 at 23:28 | comment | added | Vojtěch Strnad | I didn't notice that the process of closing a channel is not initiated by publishing an update transaciton but with a trigger transaction. And watchtowers don't need to store the trigger transaction, right? It seems you tried to answer much more than what was in the original question. | |
| Jan 8, 2022 at 18:14 | history | edited | Murch♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Update transactions are semantically identical, but the inputs and outputs handling fees and paying the watchtower may differ
|
| Jan 8, 2022 at 16:52 | history | answered | Murch♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |