Initial demo script #157
Initial demo script #157
Conversation
demo.md
Outdated
| - Alice designates some of her Network1 funds to Intermediary | ||
| - Bob designates some of his Network2 funds Intermediary |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Alice has Network1 funds she can sign over to Irene, and Irene has Network2 funds she can sign over to Bob."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was trying to list requirements for off-chains payments to work. Can you rephrase your statement so that it indicates what MUST be done by Alice, Irene, and Bob instead of what COULD be done?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alice MUST have sufficient Network1 funds she can sign over to Irene, and Irene MUST have sufficient Network2 funds she can sign over to Bob.
Concretely, if Alice wants to Pay bob x coins, Alice-Irene SCW has balance [a,i1] and Irene-Bob has balance [i2,b], then the condition is x<=a AND x<=i2*e, where e is the exchange rate from network2 funds to network1 funds.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this satisfy what you are saying?
- Alice on Network1 can pay Bob on Network2 if the following conditions are met:
- Alice has sufficient funds on Network1
- Intermediary has sufficient funds on Network2
- Intermediary has an exchange rate to convert between Network1 funds and Network2 funds
- Intermediary can access both Network1 and Network2 to monitor Alice & Bob balances
Your formula and associated variables make sense but I think its better to communicate using concise bullet points for the demo so I'm trying to get it into that format
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair enough.
Does this satisfy what you are saying?
- Alice on Network1 can pay Bob on Network2 if the following conditions are met: - Alice has sufficient funds on Network1 - Intermediary has sufficient funds on Network2
I would specify that these funds need to be in Bob's wallet. Not just "on Network2"
Otherwise, seems good. I don't know if you need to underline that the intermediary can access both networks. That is probably implied by having funds on each network.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good call, I'll remove the bullet about intermediary accessing both network. How about this:
- Alice on Network1 can pay Bob on Network2 if the following conditions are met:
- Alice has sufficient funds on Network1
- Bob has designated enough of his Network2 funds for Intermediary
- Intermediary has an exchange rate to convert between Network1 funds and Network2 funds
| - `Explain browser tab setup with Alice(left), Irene(middle), Bob(right)` | ||
| - How it works: | ||
| - on-chain txs are 2/2 multi-sig (user + intermediary) | ||
| - `Show on-chain tx from Alice to Metamask account` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be nice to do this on the receiving end, and have Bob show the transaction. We could have a flow like this:
- Alice and Bob start with a balance of [5,5]
- Alice pays Bob (crosschain and offchain!) an amount of 3
- We see all the balances update
- Bob now has a balance of 8
- Bob sends an L1 transaction of 7 (which he couldn't afford before the payment) to some external address.
This way Bob is spending funds on the chain that he didn't have access to before, due to the "offchain" payment. I think that makes the off-chain payment feel more "real", since after Bob receives it he can spend more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good call. That'd be a good way to show the cross-chain functionality
| ## Demo script: | ||
|
|
||
| - ERC-4337 compatible Smart Contract wallet | ||
| - Unique feature: gasless off-chain txs with instant finality enabled by HTLC technology, as used in Bitcoin Lightning. Funds can be moved in and out of the off-chain payment system without any on-chain txs! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should lean into the cross-chain aspect and also emphasize that. Not only do the payments happen completely off-chain, but the payments can be redeemed on different chains.
| ## Demo script: | ||
|
|
||
| - ERC-4337 compatible Smart Contract wallet | ||
| - Unique feature: gasless off-chain txs with instant finality enabled by HTLC technology, as used in Bitcoin Lightning. Funds can be moved in and out of the off-chain payment system without any on-chain txs! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We may want to be careful with the term gasless. While it's true the off-chain payments don't require gas, it could get confused with "gasless" ERC 4337 transactions, which is a whole different kettle of fish.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But our txs are actually gasless whereas the ERC-4337 txs are more like "sponsored txs" where somebody else pays the gas 🙄. You are correct though, might be confusing to use that term. Originally I had "free off-chain txs". Do you like that better or can you think of any other term that might be better?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Something like that makes sense to me! Maybe "free off-chain payments"? The term Off-chain tx seems like it might be slightly confusing. Since submitting an on-chain tx let you do much more then pay someone, while in our system an off-chain tx would only ever be a payment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed on the use of "off-chain payment" instead of "off-chain tx".
"free payment" seems contradictory but I'm good with it if you are 🤷♂️
|
Thanks @bitwiseguy let's continue editing here https://www.notion.so/statechannels/Demo-script-6f8d97bd664546dba9ebbb13c0ebbc6c |
Closes #121