It should look like a relatively normal channel except you roll it up into ctv to hide it. It is "cold" since you partner isn't aware of its existence yet. You'll need to coordinate with them to close it efficiently, otherwise you'll have to deal with the time locks.
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=960x540&blurhash=iIGR%7C-0N9b9bbb%251V%3FxZjE%7EVIWIVM%7CV%5Bocj%3Ft6oe00%3FYxp%25Lj%40NHt8WEj%5E01xZsls.jaRnt7bIbIxubHofayWBs%3BfiWBRj&x=49ba0becf3db3d0e8819a2955b8a554b8d9bee2d2bf00ed87012c8a40f161ce4
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=613x813&blurhash=_OPP_wayxuayxuj%5Bxur%3FfQaefQaefQae.SWBfkayfkaybH9tofoza%7Cozayof%7EqayWBj%5BR*j%5BWB_3WBaefQV%40j%5BWB%253aeV%40jZaej%5Bae%25MayayfQWBj%5BWB%24*aybbfkbHfQbb&x=6faeee704d9c5caaafc379aef0a006568dac29b00085fc8f87dd36b856f6d9b9
CTV and Cold Channels.
Today in Bitcoin, to make a channel, you must first receive Bitcoin on-chain and then transfer it to a channel with your partner interactively. This is a minimum of two transactions just to open a channel and the channel opening cannot be batched.
With CTV, channels can be hidden inside your pubKey so that when you're paid and the transaction is committed on-chain (can even be batched using only one UTXO), that on-chain commitment is sufficient to use your channel. No need to dump the channel details on-chain.
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=819x540&blurhash=r89tP%25yUD*M%7CNZV%5BM%7BxuRRGcnhr%3BoInhWBV%40kWWBHbICbrkURQoybYfRox%5EcW%3DNIW%3DS4oLWCjYayucyAVun%2Ct7V%5BahWAV%5B%7DmR.NKWXNIoeW%3BjFWB&x=860ed55345f9f855729c8bf1dfd19accc63cac0b31f90d19fef23c3a444d4263
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=825x540&blurhash=r67xBu.5RzRjVtRRIUt8xtpPjKRCaixca_V%5Dk8WBDSH%5DIBodx%40tPf%23WXayr%23bWR%24oxoxa%23k9WEf6tGyBtkogaQRQt7WARj%23xWANEk8k7j%5BbXaija&x=3329ea1a5da027f809f762a80c17fb860055934d498ac379894bcc18adbee1a3
Trusted Third Parties are outside the scope of Bitcoin. Custodians may be an optional evil but never a necessary evil.
Custodians aren't a form of scaling. Custodians will do everything in their power to prevent scaling.
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=500x635&blurhash=_BQ%2CL100%7Eq_3M%7B-%3B-%3BWBoft7RjofRjfQ9Ft7WBIUt7WBM%7B9FxuxuWBxuWBRjD%25IUt7M%7BfQt7WBD%25ofj%5BfQ%25Mxut7IUWBWBWBj%5Bayayt7Rjxut7ayt7ofM%7BxufQayayWBRj&x=83b13d555985edfc173f1cd1f547d2c7f1ae9bb4edf19a76e19ea7a01da02764
i never get notifs from amethyst
We have two covenants already, CSV and CLTV. they're time locks to control when a tx can be spent. The next basic covenant is CTV, a "UTXO lock", this constrains the TXID so that the transaction is *guaranteed*. This will help us scale via solutions like Ark and Timeout-Trees. My personal favorite is NIC's (Non-interactive Channels), this let's you commit to a lightning channel simply by knowing its Txid + hash. To explain how this would work, I need to withdrawal from my exchange on Friday, I go ahead and commit to making a LN channel with Bob inside my PubKey, and the exchange pays me in their batched tx. Now that I have the commitment, I can at any time, contact Bob to "establish" the channel, with no need of a second transaction.
As for Lyn's comment on how the dev community is split. CTV can be upgraded either to Txhash or Template Key and a lot of devs want to skip step 1 and go straight to the advanced covenant proposals. They've even gone as far as to say that they fear CTV would delay txhash. I want txhash too! But it needs years of more bikeshedding before it's even close to ready. CTV is ready, it's been ready for 4 years.
You were right to edit out that sentence, it didn't fit the flow and was mostly a repeat. Fixed it 😉
Quit being silly, use proper covenants and people will stop questioning Bitcoin.
I'd like to be on nostr more but it's just a wee bit boring at the moment. No notifs and no real engagement. Where's everybody at? Pull me in.
If y'all haven't looked into Frostsnap yet, you're wrong. This is wild.
Custodial solutions are not scaling solutions. Calle has been doing a lot of great work to make them cashu transparent such as proof of reserves but the name of the game is trustless. I dont expect to onboard the entire planet onto a custodial solutions and call it a win. I dont even expect to use them as privacy solutions and call it a win.
So Enigma and Ark are different concepts. Enigma is the framework of the emergent behavior if you add Covenants to a network similar to how Lightning is the emergent behavior of adding channels to a network. As Submarine Swaps are to Lightning, Ark is to Enigma. So it doesn't really make sense to compare them in that manner. Nor does it make sense to call them vaporware. Enigma itself isnt even something for me to code, it's me talking to people who are already collaborating such as Lightning Service Providers and wallet developers and convincing them to integrate covenants into their systems. CTV is active on both Signet and Thunder (Drivechain network) already so it's accessible there. Sapio is a frontend for Bitcoin core to allow you to do it yourself. I also don't get this thing where we've started calling things vaporware after a week. It kinda degrades it, need to reserve that for things like duke.
Monero could potentially bootstrap CTV but it has a long road ahead. It currently can't even do Pre-Signed Transactions (PSBT's) yet, it needs a hard fork to do it.
https://comit.network/blog/2021/07/02/transaction-presigning/
I like to give monero the benefit of the doubt since it currently provides real utility that Bitcoin can't quite yet give. But that paper and article gives a good insight to the challenges of monero's premature optimization. I also think if you do add covenants, you'll have to ask yourself if you also want channels as they're similar in nature except one is deterministic and the other is indeterministic. I think the criticism of trying to onboard the entire population into a single indeterministic primitive is quite valid, hence my work, but I also think we've also lost the plot somewhere along the way. I like to nudge the BCH guys because their culture is "layer one" but due to their recent upgrades, they're now capable of both lightning and potentially Enigma, there's some limitations but the only thing holding them back now is a cultural limitation, if BTC were to fail, would we not migrate there and use the lightning network there? The BTC culture is overly reliant on Lightning but that's where i provide a counter narrative that's hopefully palatable for everyone