Initial Spec Peer Review #238
Conversation
gakonst
commented
Aug 5, 2019
•
gakonst
commented
- Rewrite of fees section, fixes Expand the signing bond example to be more explicit #33
- Document threshold signing (add sequence chart illustrating protocol), fixes Detail the signing process #24 -- waiting for Matt to handle Vertical graph for withdrawal flow messages #39
- Bond auction, fixes Document the bond auction mechanism #99
- TBTC + ETH for bonds, fixes Allow TBTC and ETH usage for signing bonds in v2 #118
- Document potential loss of any amount that exceeds 1.0 BTC deposit to arbitrageurs, fixes Document deposit overfunding #191
- Document optimizations on returns for signing bonds e.g. via lending in Compound Explore signing bond leverage in v2 #14, Maximize returns on signing bonds #117
| approaches 100. Note how when we additionally back a deposit with ETH, TBTC | ||
| liquidity improves at the expense of capital efficiency. | ||
|
|
||
| // full data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rG9XS6xJbulltwKBMfszfkHeqG5Bl6JboIpIjO1Qn3Q/edit#gid=0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there an easy way to get this data / curve into the repo and out of Google? cc @Shadowfiend
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The curve png helps, just thinking it might be worth pulling a table in directly
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can probably extract a piece to CSV and pull it in as a table; see the example “Table from CSV data in file” in the Table section of the Asciidoctor syntax quick reference. We can also probably shovel that same CSV into TikZ to generate the plot, if we want.
| size (`1.0 BTC` initially). This implies that the a user that sends less than `1.0 | ||
| BTC` in the funding transaction does not receive any tBTC, and forfeits the BTC | ||
| locked in the funding transactions to the Signers. The Signers can unlock and | ||
| evenly split the funds in the transaction after the _Deposit_ is resolved on-chain (see |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know you didn't do this originally, but let's be consistent on
`Deposit` vs _Deposit_ vs Deposit
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I saw all 3 used across the document, are they interchangeable? If so we could just go with the italics.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yuck. I know the plaintext treatment is off. Maybe backticks for the capital-D deposit referring directly to a contract, versus italics for lowercase-d?
|
Left comments about threshold signing in https://github.com/keep-network/tbtc/pull/243/files |
gakonst
force-pushed
the
gakonst/spec-peer-review
branch
from
f8e977e to
6bf7149
Compare
|
@mhluongo This should be good for one more round of review. Is the tECDSA section elaborate enough? I understand the protocol to add more details, however it might get too verbose if we wanted to write about the multiplicative to additive sharing mechanism along with the commitments / proofs of knowledge required. Where should we put the graphs from #243? |
|
Uh oh @gakonst, not sure how I missed this- we need all commits signed to merge 😩 The last one looks good, so you be doable via a rebase |
gakonst
force-pushed
the
gakonst/spec-peer-review
branch
from
1bc66ea to
ed54737
Compare
Overcollateralized position: Signer buy tBTC, redeem, reclaim ETH liquidity, open more positions - cleaner that way Undercollateralized position: Buy all liquid tBTC from uniswap, put up an auction for the rest (try to get a discount from arbitrageurs) Signers do whatever they want with escrowed BTC on Bitcoin chain
gakonst
force-pushed
the
gakonst/spec-peer-review
branch
from
ed54737 to
a64dc2e
Compare
