How could a separate Colored Coin Lightning Network work?

[Elwar]

Would it be possible to create a colored coin exclusive Lightning Network?

Say I proclaim that all satoshis coming from address "1XYZ..." are poker chips to be used for some decentralized online casinos (or whichever).

Then people open LN nodes moving microtransactions of these single satoshis back and forth opening channels.

All is well until someone creates a node that is connected to the network. Then opens a second node and feeds bitcoins from another address and floods the network with new satoshis. You can't trace where the bitcoins in the network originate from so you wouldn't know if the coins you receive are from the fake address or not.

How could it be done so that only satoshis originating from "1XYZ..." are allowed on the network?

[Wind_FURY]

I believe it is possible, but what you are proposing is an off-chain private network where it is you who makes the rules.

Maybe the anti-Lightning crowd is right. A fractional banking 2.0 layer can be built on top of Bitcoin, but it would be completely different from Lightning.

[Elwar]

I believe it is possible, but what you are proposing is an off-chain private network where it is you who makes the rules.

Maybe the anti-Lightning crowd is right. A fractional banking 2.0 layer can be built on top of Bitcoin, but it would be completely different from Lightning.

It wouldn't be off-chain because it's using bitcoins.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe it is possible, but what you are proposing is an off-chain private network where it is you who makes the rules.

Maybe the anti-Lightning crowd is right. A fractional banking 2.0 layer can be built on top of Bitcoin, but it would be completely different from Lightning.

It wouldn't be off-chain because it's using bitcoins.

What do you mean? Lightning uses Bitcoins but it is an off-chain network layered on top. Unless you are saying that "technically" it is not "off-chain" because coins are held in a multisig address and transactions are stored locally.

But would it be possible for banks to create their own "private off-chain layer" that works under their own rules? I believe it is.

[Elwar]

I believe it is possible, but what you are proposing is an off-chain private network where it is you who makes the rules.

Maybe the anti-Lightning crowd is right. A fractional banking 2.0 layer can be built on top of Bitcoin, but it would be completely different from Lightning.

It wouldn't be off-chain because it's using bitcoins.

What do you mean? Lightning uses Bitcoins but it is an off-chain network layered on top. Unless you are saying that "technically" it is not "off-chain" because coins are held in a multisig address and transactions are stored locally.

But would it be possible for banks to create their own "private off-chain layer" that works under their own rules? I believe it is.

I see what you're saying. Yes, I meant that due to the fact that you're essentially creating a transaction between two entities it's still on chain. It just does a bit of back and forth before finalizing.

I was thinking a bit more on this. I see a lot of overhead pictures of the current Lightning Network with addresses and such. Is this something that anyone can see? All of the nodes of the network? If someone were to open a channel from an address that is not in the approved list of addresses, could that node then be shut out of the rest of the network? Any coins coming from that node being "tainted".

[nicosey]

How would you see the colour on the lightning transactions?

[Elwar]

How would you see the colour on the lightning transactions?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. It would need to rely on knowing that only certain addresses are on the network.


If the only addresses allowed are A,B,C,D,E,F then you could have A open a channel to B, B to C, etc.

If everyone knows that only those addresses can be used then they could see that no new bitcoins are going to those addresses (thus increasing the satoshis on the network). If someone increases the amount on one of those addresses without conforming to the colored coin, then it would be rejected.

But if A opens a channel to B, then A opens a channel to S (which has a lot of BTC) then A could send a shitload of satoshis to B which represent something else.

I only understand LN at the high level so I'm not sure if this is possible.

[HeRetiK]

Would it be possible to create a colored coin exclusive Lightning Network?

Say I proclaim that all satoshis coming from address "1XYZ..." are poker chips to be used for some decentralized online casinos (or whichever).

[...]

As far as I'm aware of asset ownership protocol layers on top of Bitcoin (eg. XCP, OMNI) don't rely on a source address for its "color" but rather some additional meta-data that is part of the (on-chain) Bitcoin transaction. Whether this form of meta-data is compatible with Lightning Network is a different question of course, but at least as far as XCP is concerned there seems to be efforts being made:

https://counterparty.io/docs/paymentchannels-lightning-faq/

(assuming it's still current, I'm not actively tracking Counterparty anymore)


There have been other projects working on LN-based colored coins as well:
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-lightning-network-now-digital-asset-compatible/

However the project mentioned in this article seems to have moved to Ethereum since then.


So it seems like LN-enabled colored coins have been in the realm of possibility since early LN drafts, I'm not sure whether the current protocol spec still allows for it though.

[Elwar]

Would it be possible to create a colored coin exclusive Lightning Network?

Say I proclaim that all satoshis coming from address "1XYZ..." are poker chips to be used for some decentralized online casinos (or whichever).

[...]

As far as I'm aware of asset ownership protocol layers on top of Bitcoin (eg. XCP, OMNI) don't rely on a source address for its "color" but rather some additional meta-data that is part of the (on-chain) Bitcoin transaction. Whether this form of meta-data is compatible with Lightning Network is a different question of course, but at least as far as XCP is concerned there seems to be efforts being made:

https://counterparty.io/docs/paymentchannels-lightning-faq/

(assuming it's still current, I'm not actively tracking Counterparty anymore)


There have been other projects working on LN-based colored coins as well:
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-lightning-network-now-digital-asset-compatible/

However the project mentioned in this article seems to have moved to Ethereum since then.


So it seems like LN-enabled colored coins have been in the realm of possibility since early LN drafts, I'm not sure whether the current protocol spec still allows for it though.

Thank you for the information. I'll check those out.

[Kakmakr]

Elwar, was the intention of colored coins not to "black list" certain coins on a network. Say, someone hacked an exchange and you wanted to "blacklist" those coins, then you would tag them and people will be flagged if they received those coins.

I think the debate around colored coins was more about the negative misuse of those powers or am I confusing this concept with something else?

Would a Colored Coin LN be good or bad and who would be making the decisions? <The owner of the channel or some centralized authority?> 

[Elwar]

Elwar, was the intention of colored coins not to "black list" certain coins on a network. Say, someone hacked an exchange and you wanted to "blacklist" those coins, then you would tag them and people will be flagged if they received those coins.

I think the debate around colored coins was more about the negative misuse of those powers or am I confusing this concept with something else?

Would a Colored Coin LN be good or bad and who would be making the decisions? <The owner of the channel or some centralized authority?> 

I have not heard about that discussion about black listing.

I see it more as being able to represent something other than bitcoin and LN being used for easy transfers. The idea I had specifically was a fiat pegged crypto using Bitcoin which would allow for easy exchange from fiat to BTC.

I see the creation of Ethereum and new chains to represent something that can be done on the most secure blockchain (Bitcoin) as a lazy approach which lacks imagination and ingenuity.

I would rather not have any central authority but rather a protocol that is accepted via consensus much like TCP/IP and other protocols.

[Wind_FURY]

OP, what about an off-chain private network set-up, but made up of only "approved" validating nodes running on top of Bitcoin? Users are free to join the network but only through the approved validating nodes that follow its own rules.

[HeRetiK]

Elwar, was the intention of colored coins not to "black list" certain coins on a network. Say, someone hacked an exchange and you wanted to "blacklist" those coins, then you would tag them and people will be flagged if they received those coins.

I think the debate around colored coins was more about the negative misuse of those powers or am I confusing this concept with something else?

Would a Colored Coin LN be good or bad and who would be making the decisions? <The owner of the channel or some centralized authority?> 

I think you are referring to "taint". Tainted coins is / was the concept of marking coins that were part of a criminal activity.

The idea behind colored coins is to allow for tokens / transferrable ownership rights via (in this case) Bitcoin transactions. Colored coins were pretty much the predecessor of Ethereum tokens, although I might be oversimplifying things a bit.

[Kakmakr]

Elwar, was the intention of colored coins not to "black list" certain coins on a network. Say, someone hacked an exchange and you wanted to "blacklist" those coins, then you would tag them and people will be flagged if they received those coins.

I think the debate around colored coins was more about the negative misuse of those powers or am I confusing this concept with something else?

Would a Colored Coin LN be good or bad and who would be making the decisions? <The owner of the channel or some centralized authority?> 

I think you are referring to "taint". Tainted coins is / was the concept of marking coins that were part of a criminal activity.

The idea behind colored coins is to allow for tokens / transferrable ownership rights via (in this case) Bitcoin transactions. Colored coins were pretty much the predecessor of Ethereum tokens, although I might be oversimplifying things a bit.

Ok, my bad. I thought if you implemented "colored coins" in this scenario, that it might lead to some coins being tagged for a specific purpose and that some centralized organization or individual can misuse that privilege to "black list" coins. Just imagine if some fool starts to "black list" millions of coins, because he or she has the rights to do that.

Take a Bitcoin ETF for instance, if some investment fund bought 1000s of coins on behalf of their investors and they flag/taint these coins accidentally. 

[nicosey]

I thought with lightning you can't see the transactions under the channel is closed?
So therefore how would you color them?

[Elwar]

I thought with lightning you can't see the transactions under the channel is closed?
So therefore how would you color them?

Well, the channel needs to be opened. When a channel is opened the two/three nodes know the public keys of who is opening them. Once the channels are open all transactions are anonymous (you don't know if coins coming from your neighbor node are originally from him or passed to him from someone else).

I think the key would be to find a way of restricting the opening of channels from addresses that aren't colored. And somehow restricting the amount (to prevent someone from just adding X bitcoins that aren't colored).

Still need to check into the way others have approached it.

[Elwar]

OP, what about an off-chain private network set-up, but made up of only "approved" validating nodes running on top of Bitcoin? Users are free to join the network but only through the approved validating nodes that follow its own rules.

Any chain that's not backed by an underlying asset is prone to attack. At least, less secure than bitcoin.

Going off chain or creating a new shitcoin or using ETH tokens is easy. But not the best solution.

[nicosey]

OP, what about an off-chain private network set-up, but made up of only "approved" validating nodes running on top of Bitcoin? Users are free to join the network but only through the approved validating nodes that follow its own rules.

Any chain that's not backed by an underlying asset is prone to attack. At least, less secure than bitcoin.

Going off chain or creating a new shitcoin or using ETH tokens is easy. But not the best solution.

So maybe better just to have a dedicated side chain for these colored tokens and then merge back into the bitcoin blockchain?