Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2021, 09:02:26 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Statechains: a new Layer 2 protocol.  (Read 165 times)
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4390


Be a bank


View Profile
June 11, 2019, 08:48:05 PM
Merited by ETFbitcoin (1)
 #1

Statechains have come back to the realm of dicussion.
After Lightning, Liquid sidechain and Risk sidechain, a new Layer 2 protocol is proposed.

https://twitter.com/SomsenRuben/status/1135866719141076993
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2019-06-07-statechains/
many more links in this medium article:
https://medium.com/@RubenSomsen/statechains-non-custodial-off-chain-bitcoin-transfer-1ae4845a4a39
Quote
In short, Statechains are novel in the sense that they allow you to change UTXO ownership off-chain, while preserving a large degree of censorship resistance due to the ability to withdraw on-chain. It is non-custodial, which naturally reduces risk and makes it easier for the Statechain entity from a regulatory point of view. The end result is a unique layer two protocol with its own distinct strengths and weaknesses

https://youtu.be/ncpjRsHHUiA?t=5900 @shinobi and @nopara commentary
My summary of that, but please correct me where I am wrong.
-requires schnorr sigs and eltoo, also sighash anyprevout, which may take some time
-adds liquidity to lightning without opening channels from mainchain
-could interact with lightning to split up the locked utxo, and/or remove the federation
-could also use blinded sigs, adding a layer of privacy

I find it absolutely intriguing and full of possibilities for the current direction of bitcoin here.
Do you like the sound of it and are there any major downsides?

Goat says: "Bitcoin is NOT Illegal in Thailand. There is no law against Bitcoin in Thailand!"
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1638738146
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638738146

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638738146
Reply with quote  #2

1638738146
Report to moderator
pereira4
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1178


View Profile
June 12, 2019, 11:32:30 PM
 #2

See zack_bitcoin commentary on potential downsides (keywords: retirement attacks):

https://twitter.com/zack_bitcoin/status/1135934900605980672

Quote
This is the same capability as lighting + probabilistic payments. Except it has a lower level of security and is vulnerable to retirement attacks.

In any case competing layer 2 protocols are always good, the only problem I see is when they may require controversial updates like segwit.
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4390


Be a bank


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 12:18:11 AM
 #3

This was also addressed in the Block Digest video, and here https://twitter.com/kcalvinalvinn/status/1135987591310798848

Quote
So "4.1 level security" = money can be stolen outright.

This is not the case with Statechains. If a previous possessor of a transitory key tries to withdraw on chain, then you're able to replace that transaction just like in lightning (eltoo).

The only way the entity can cheat is if they work with a previous possessor of an transitory key. Even so, they'll only be able to steal that particular UTXO. This becomes much harder with MuSig.

Obviously it's still a trusted setup but it's much more harder to cheat than Liquid style Federated Sidechains.

Gosh, don't they all require that segwit? All the changes required are very controversial and even laughable in some quarters, yes. But we're here, in this quarter.

squatter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1189


STOP SNITCHIN'


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 01:05:20 AM
 #4

This is an interesting proposal. I wish I had the technical expertise to judge the "retirement attack" vector. For example, what exactly do these statements imply? What is the risk in real terms?

Quote
The only way the entity can cheat is if they work with a previous possessor of an transitory key. Even so, they'll only be able to steal that particular UTXO. This becomes much harder with MuSig.
Quote
Yes, that is what 4.1 means. They can steal it at no cost, but we all know who stole it.

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3220
Merit: 2601



View Profile
June 13, 2019, 06:40:42 AM
Merited by bob123 (1)
 #5

This is an interesting proposal. I wish I had the technical expertise to judge the "retirement attack" vector. For example, what exactly do these statements imply? What is the risk in real terms?

Quote
The only way the entity can cheat is if they work with a previous possessor of an transitory key. Even so, they'll only be able to steal that particular UTXO. This becomes much harder with MuSig.
Quote
Yes, that is what 4.1 means. They can steal it at no cost, but we all know who stole it.

in essence it means: trust required

Vires in numeris
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!