[Lightning-dev] Data Lightning Atomic Swap (DLAS-down, DLAS-up)

[Subhra Mazumdar]

So is it sufficient to give a zk proof of the entire file and not of the
individual blocks which are transferred at each iteration? Also does it
make sense that you make partial payment per block instead of waiting for
the total file to arrive. It might be the case that the zk proof of the
total file is correct but then sender might cheat while sending individual
block.

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 00:26 Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> wrote:

> Don’t and data in lighting payments unless you have to. It’s super DoS-y
> and rude to your peers. If you’re just transferring a file, you can use
> ZKCP to send an encrypted copy of the file with the encryption key being
> the payment_preimage, making the whole thing one big atomic action.
>
> On Jan 20, 2020, at 13:33, Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
> Sounds good. But how do I provide a correctness for the entire asset to be
> transferred when I am already partitioning into several units (say chunks
> of file ? ) So as an when the block of file is received then we have to
> give a ZK proof "block x is part of File F". Is it how this should work ?
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Zk proofs are incredibly fast these days for small-ish programs. They’re
>> much too slow for a consensus system where every party needs to download
>> and validate them, but for relatively simple programs a two-party system
>> using them is very doable.
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2020, at 13:23, Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> But isn't it that the use of ZK proof will render the system slow and
>> hence defy the very purpose of lightning network which intends to make
>> things scalable as well as faster transaction ?
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:48 PM Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That paper discusses it, but I don't think there was ever a paper proper
>>> on ZKCP. There are various discussions of it, though, if you google.
>>> Sadly this is common in this space - lots of great ideas where no one
>>> ever bothered to write academic-style papers about them (hence why
>>> academic papers around Bitcoin tend to miss nearly all relevant context,
>>> sadly).
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> On 1/20/20 6:10 PM, Subhra Mazumdar wrote:
>>> > Are you referring to the paper Zero knowledge contingent payment
>>> > revisited ? I will look into the construction. Thanks for the
>>> > information! :)
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 23:31 Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com
>>> > <mailto:lf-lists at mattcorallo.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     On 11/9/19 4:31 AM, Takaya Imai wrote:
>>> >     > [What I do not describe]
>>> >     > * A way to detect that data is correct or not, namely zero
>>> knowledge
>>> >     > proof process.
>>> >
>>> >     Have you come across Zero Knowledge Contingent Payments?
>>> Originally it
>>> >     was designed for on-chain applications but it slots neatly into
>>> >     lightning as it only requires a method to lock funds to a hash
>>> preimage.
>>> >
>>> >     Matt
>>> >     _______________________________________________
>>> >     Lightning-dev mailing list
>>> >     Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> >     <mailto:Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>> >     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Yours sincerely,
>> Subhra Mazumdar.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Yours sincerely,
> Subhra Mazumdar.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20200121/6e78e4d8/attachment.html>