<blockquote>
<p>I understand that a channel is a 2 of 2 multisig.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Right, a channel according to the current Lightning protocol must be a 2-of-2 multisig. As far as the blockchain is concerned any funds moved from this address require two signatures from the two specified public keys.</p>
<p>However, as you rightly say Schnorr multisig (e.g. MuSig2) and Schnorr threshold key aggregation schemes (e.g. FROST) allow you to simulate multisignature and threshold signatures arrangements with only one signature and one (aggregated) public key going onchain. So you can take one (or both) of those 2 keys in the 2-of-2 and do as you suggest.</p>
<p>In addition the Lightning protocol could change in future to take advantage of MuSig2 and turn that 2-of-2 into a single pubkey spend. However, that most likely won't happen anytime soon, requires a Lightning protocol change, channels to upgrade etc. The nested schemes you suggest can happen today and as far as the blockchain and the Lightning gossip is concerned it is a valid 2-of-2 with no knowledge of the simulated arrangement behind it.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Separately, I presume if you use Schnorr signatures, there is no way to know how many are needed for the threshold. Is this true? So it would be:</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Right, unless you are part of the multisig or threshold arrangement all you see is the signatures on the blockchain. So you don't know whether a threshold was used at all and if it was what exact threshold it used.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Are these live on LN?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As Rene says we expect this isn't happening today as we haven't seen open source implementations of it yet but it is possible it is.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-16T17:06:54.143Z
2022-06-16T17:17:09.643Z
2022-06-16T17:17:09.643Z
Michael Folkson
<p>As you realized the point of Lightning is to reduce latency. At the same time coordinating signatures from various parties in order to move forward the state seems rather impractical. Thus as far as I know there is no open source implementation by anyone to do that.</p>
<p>However this is certainly possible and probably also useful to some.</p>
<p>As a starting point I would look at <a href="https://gitlab.com/lightning-signer/docs" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://gitlab.com/lightning-signer/docs</a> where they create a remote signer. This remote signer could probably have a more involved signature scheme like you proposed.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-16T17:03:10.390Z
2022-06-16T17:03:10.390Z
Rene Pickhardt
<p>I understand that a channel is a 2 of 2 multisig:</p>
<pre><code>1 &amp;&amp; 1
</code></pre>
<p>Is it possible that one side of this channel is a multisig wallet?</p>
<p>So in essence one of the 2 main, is actually a 2 of 3 multisig. This would be:</p>
<pre><code>( 2 of 3 ) &amp;&amp; 1
</code></pre>
<p>If the other side was also multisig (say 4 of 5), then the channel would be:</p>
<pre><code>( 2 of 3 ) &amp;&amp; ( 4 of 5 )
</code></pre>
<p>I know the point of LN is speed, and low fees. So speed is hurt by coordinating multiple signatures. And also multisig is typically meant for high value, so fees might not be an issue if not on LN.</p>
<p>Separately, I presume if you use Schnorr signatures, there is no way to know how many are needed for the threshold. Is this true? So it would be:</p>
<pre><code>1 schnorr threshold &amp;&amp; 1 schnorr threshold
</code></pre>
<p>Are these live on LN?</p>

<lightning-network><multi-signature><schnorr-signatures><musig><frost>
Can you do P2WSH / P2SH on Lightning Network (LN)?
miketery
# Can you do P2WSH / P2SH on Lightning Network (LN)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-06-16)

I understand that a channel is a 2 of 2 multisig:

```
1 && 1

```

Is it possible that one side of this channel is a multisig wallet?

So in essence one of the 2 main, is actually a 2 of 3 multisig. This would be:

```
( 2 of 3 ) && 1

```

If the other side was also multisig (say 4 of 5), then the channel would be:

```
( 2 of 3 ) && ( 4 of 5 )

```

I know the point of LN is speed, and low fees. So speed is hurt by coordinating multiple signatures. And also multisig is typically meant for high value, so fees might not be an issue if not on LN.

Separately, I presume if you use Schnorr signatures, there is no way to know how many are needed for the threshold. Is this true? So it would be:

```
1 schnorr threshold && 1 schnorr threshold

```

Are these live on LN?

**Tags:** lightning-network, multi-signature, schnorr-signatures, musig, frost


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-06-16. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

> I understand that a channel is a 2 of 2 multisig.

Right, a channel according to the current Lightning protocol must be a 2-of-2 multisig. As far as the blockchain is concerned any funds moved from this address require two signatures from the two specified public keys.

However, as you rightly say Schnorr multisig (e.g. MuSig2) and Schnorr threshold key aggregation schemes (e.g. FROST) allow you to simulate multisignature and threshold signatures arrangements with only one signature and one (aggregated) public key going onchain. So you can take one (or both) of those 2 keys in the 2-of-2 and do as you suggest.

In addition the Lightning protocol could change in future to take advantage of MuSig2 and turn that 2-of-2 into a single pubkey spend. However, that most likely won't happen anytime soon, requires a Lightning protocol change, channels to upgrade etc. The nested schemes you suggest can happen today and as far as the blockchain and the Lightning gossip is concerned it is a valid 2-of-2 with no knowledge of the simulated arrangement behind it.

> Separately, I presume if you use Schnorr signatures, there is no way to know how many are needed for the threshold. Is this true? So it would be:

Right, unless you are part of the multisig or threshold arrangement all you see is the signatures on the blockchain. So you don't know whether a threshold was used at all and if it was what exact threshold it used.

> Are these live on LN?

As username_2 says we expect this isn't happening today as we haven't seen open source implementations of it yet but it is possible it is.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-06-16. Score: 2

As you realized the point of Lightning is to reduce latency. At the same time coordinating signatures from various parties in order to move forward the state seems rather impractical. Thus as far as I know there is no open source implementation by anyone to do that.

However this is certainly possible and probably also useful to some.

As a starting point I would look at <https://gitlab.com/lightning-signer/docs> where they create a remote signer. This remote signer could probably have a more involved signature scheme like you proposed.


---

