European parliamentary elections are happening right now. Streets of the EU are full of posters promoting parties and candidates. I thought it’s a suitable time to share my thoughts on one particular policy area. Inequality and discrimination are trendy topics. Restricting someone’s freedoms because of the color of their skin sounds so absurd (to me at least) that it’s a somewhat easy target. I’d like to point out though, that there is another major source of unjust discrimination which few people talk about – citizenship.
Continuing the journey through layer-two technologies, here is a summary of the paper “eltoo: A Simple Layer2 Protocol for Bitcoin” by Christian Decker et al (see also: a summary in the Blockstream blog). Eltoo proposes a new construction for payment channels. It is not a fully-fledged protocol, rather, it only describes one crucial building block – state revocation mechanism. As you might remember from my summary of “SoK: Off the chain transactions”, the crucial challenge in L2 protocol design is old state invalidation. Lightning uses replace by revocation (in the SoK paper terms) which works in practice but has its drawbacks. The construction is rather complex, and the intermediate states held by the two parties are different. This inherent asymmetry prevents easily extending the protocol to support multi-party channels. Eltoo suggest another, symmetric state revocation mechanism, which is arguably better modulo one crucial limitation: it depends on a non-existent SIGHASH_NOINPUT signature flag. The good news is, this change can be implemented relatively easily via a soft fork and doesn’t seem to be very contentions. If that happens, it would be possible to replace state revocation mechanism in the live Lightning network to Eltoo while preserving all other aspects (channel synchronization vis HTLCs, routing algorithms, etc).
The authors seem to prefer stylized inscription “eltoo”, in all small letters, but I prefer capitalizing proper nouns for easier reading, sorry. ↩
Here is papers I’ve been waiting for for quite a while. Thinking about it, I’d be happy to have (co-)written it, had I directed my research into this topic a bit earlier. Today’s summary is based on a systematization of knowledge (SoK) paper by Lewis Gudgeon et al entitled “SoK: Off the chain transactions”. The readers of this blog must be familiar with some of the challenges in layer-two protocols which I outlined in previous paper summaries. But as in any rapidly developing field, information is dispersed across various media and is getting outdated quickly. The authors summarize and systematize the challenges faced by the developers of layer-two protocols and compare the existing solutions. I definitely gained at least some of the mental clarity essential for digging deeper and contributing to the field. Read the whole thing to get general view of what problems are out there and how various proposals are tackling them. And the 136 references will fill your “read later” folder with papers for months to come!
Let’s continue our journey though recent paper which suggest ways to optimize routing in payment channel networks. In previous posts, we looked an SilentWhispers and SpeedyMurmurs. Both approaches emphasized privacy as an important goal, but employed different constructions: landmark-based routing (SW) and embedding-based routing (SM). Today let’s look into a paper entitled “Routing cryptocurrency with the Spider network” (2018) by Sivaraman et al.
In a previous post, I discussed SilentWhispers – a routing algorithm for credit networks. Today I’ll dive into a follow-up paper by a partially intersecting group of authors, entitled “Settling payments fast and private: decentralized routing for path-based transactions”, which presents a routing algorithm called SpeedyMurmurs.
As I stated previously, payment channel networks (PCNs) are cool. One of their distinguishing features, which separates them from the underlying layer-1 blockchains, is the importance of routing. A sender of a layer-1 transaction only assumes that that a miner will receive it in a reasonable amount of time. Any transaction with a sufficient fee will be confirmed. Its random route through the gossip network is not important.
Payment channel networks (PCNs) are a promising technology to overcome scalability challenges of open blockchains by moving the majority of transactions off-chain. At the time of writing, the only PCN working in production on at least some scale is the Lightning network (LN) for Bitcoin. I haven’t yet written the planned second and other parts of the series on how LN works (see part 1 and stay tuned). Today I present you the summary of a paper by Giulio Malavolta et al. entitled “Concurrency and Privacy with Payment-Channel Networks” (CCS 2017). It describes and formalizes the privacy and security of PCNs, and propose two PCN constructions which improve over LN, exploring the inherent privacy vs concurrency trade-off.
This the first post in a series about the Lightning network.
The best way to learn something is to teach it. From now on, I will write summaries of noteworthy papers I read, talks I watch, etc. That was one of the main purposes for starting this blog, after all.
In December 2018, I attended a Winter school on blockchain and cryptocurrencies in the Hebrew university of Jerusalem. This was one of the best events of this kind I have ever attended. The level of talks was consistently high, and the coffee break discussions were tremendously insightful. I’ve been making lots of notes during the lectures, and dedicated a whole episode of my Russian-language podcast to summarizing them.
Hi, I’m Sergei. I’m doing blockchain security research in the University of Luxembourg. Read more on the About page.