---

name: bitcoin-dlcs description: | Discreet Log Contracts: smart contracts on Bitcoin via oracle attestations + adaptor signatures. Oracle publishes nonces upfront, reveals signed outcomes; CETs (Contract Execution Transactions) enforce payouts. No on-chain footprint of the contract logic. USE WHEN: building betting / prediction markets, parametric insurance, derivatives, oracle-driven settlements on Bitcoin. allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob

Discreet Log Contracts (DLCs)

DLCs let two parties bet on real-world outcomes (price, sports, weather) with on-chain settlement, without revealing contract terms on chain. The oracle never knows about the bet; the chain only sees a 2-of-2 multisig + a CET that looks like an ordinary cooperative spend.

Original 2017 paper: Tadge Dryja. Wire format and transaction construction come from github.com/discreetlogcontracts/dlcspecs, which still labels itself an "In Progress Specification" and has not merged a change to master since February 2023 — see Standardization below before treating any of it as a moving target.

Core mechanism

1. Oracle setup (one-time):

   • Oracle has long-term key P_oracle.
   • For each event, oracle publishes nonce R_event = k * G in advance.
   • Oracle pledges: when event happens, publishes s_outcome such that s_outcome * G = R_event + e_outcome * P_oracle where e_outcome = H(R_event, outcome_label).

2. Funding (party setup):

   • Alice and Bob agree on contract: payout function (outcome → (a, b)).
   • They pre-sign all possible CETs as adaptor signatures over each outcome's T_outcome = R_event + e_outcome * P_oracle.
   • Together they fund a 2-of-2 multisig output (the funding tx).

3. Settlement:

   • Oracle publishes s_outcome for the actual outcome.
   • The party favored by that outcome adapts their pre-signed CET with s_outcome and broadcasts.
   • Settlement happens in a single tx, looking like a generic 2-of-2 spend on chain.

4. Refund (timeout):

   • If oracle never publishes (event canceled), parties can refund via a CSV time-locked refund tx pre-signed during funding.

Why "discreet"

• On chain, an observer sees: funding tx (2-of-2 multisig output), settlement tx (a regular spend). No contract terms, no oracle key, no payout structure.
• Oracle never learns about the contract. Oracles can serve many unrelated DLCs from one event publication.

Numerical outcomes

For continuous outcomes (e.g., BTC price ∈ [0, 100k]), oracle uses multi-nonce attestation: publishes one R_i per bit / digit of the outcome. Parties pre-sign CETs covering ranges of bit patterns.

CET count grows with precision:

• 0.1% precision over a 100k range → ~1000 CETs.
• Modern DLC libraries use CET trees + adaptor combinator tricks to compress.

DLC vs other primitives

Property	DLC	HTLC	LN PTLC
On-chain footprint	1 funding + 1 settlement	1 setup + 1 redeem	LN channel update
Oracle/preimage	external oracle attestation	internal preimage	internal point
Outcome space	discrete or numerical	binary (revealed/not)	binary
Atomicity	enforced via adaptor sigs	enforced via hash	enforced via point

Standardization

github.com/discreetlogcontracts/dlcspecs defines:

• Funding protocol.
• CET construction.
• Adaptor sig encoding.
• Oracle attestation format.

Wire protocol uses Lightning-style TLV messages over Tor / clearnet.

Status (as of September 2026): the spec is a de-facto standard frozen at its early-2023 state. The newest commit on master is 9cd9148 "Correct Typo in Signature Point calculation" (2023-02-13); the README still describes a work-in-progress draft with an unfinished v0 milestone, and 43 issues are open. No DLC BIP has ever been filed — the bitcoin/bips index contains no entry for DLCs or discreet log contracts as of September 2026. The repo is not archived and 22 pull requests are open, six of them updated with new commits or comments in March 2026, but nothing has merged in over three years. Everything the README lists as "Future Work" — DLC transfers/updates, option-style DLCs, Taproot DLCs, DLC construction inside Lightning — remains unspecified. Treat the 2023 documents as the interop contract and cross-check field-level details against a live implementation rather than waiting on spec updates.

Implementations

Maintenance state as of September 2026:

• rust-dlc (p2pderivatives org, by Crypto Garage) — most complete Rust stack, but slow-moving.
  • dlc-manager orchestrates the funding/CET/refund tx chain, dlc-trie covers numerical contracts, dlc-messages the wire format.
  • Integrates with rust-bitcoin, bdk.
  • v0.8.0 on crates.io, published 2025-12-13, which is also the date of the newest commit on master. The repo carries git tags but has published no GitHub releases.
  • Its own README says the library "has not been thoroughly tested in production yet", recommends "avoiding using it on main-net", and notes it "is not yet fully compliant" with dlcspecs. Do not bill it as production-grade on the strength of feature coverage alone.
• bitcoin-s (Suredbits) — Scala; dlc-wallet, dlc-oracle and dlc-node modules. The most actively maintained full node-plus-DLC stack; 1.9.12 released 2026-03-21.
• node-dlc (Atomic Finance) — TypeScript; v1.2.1 (July 2026), still taking feature work.
• cfd-dlc (Crypto Garage) — C++ library with a JS wrapper, used by the P2PDerivatives client. Last pushed February 2023; dormant.
• NDLC (Nicolas Dorier) — C# implementation intended for BTCPayServer. Last pushed January 2021; abandoned.

Earlier revisions of this skill also listed dlc-protocol (DLC.dev, Python), dlc-tools (JS/TS) and DLCKit (Bitfinex iOS). None of the three could be located in September 2026: no matching repositories surface in a GitHub search, dlc.dev does not respond, and none appear in the dlcspecs implementation list. Treat them as gone.

Use cases

• Sports betting — outcome = team A or B wins.
• Price hedging — bilateral derivatives on BTC/USD.
• Parametric insurance — payout based on weather oracle.
• Lightning Loop alternatives — DLC-based off-chain mechanisms.
• Bitcoin-collateralized lending — Lygos (formed August 2025 from Atomic Finance's DLC stack) runs DLC-backed institutional loans.

Earlier revisions of this skill paired "Lava / Atomic Finance" here as live DLC apps; both halves are stale as of September 2026. Lava's CEO stated in November 2025 that Lava "no longer uses DLCs … for loans because the technology doesn't meet our security standards", and reporting that month described collateral moving to a custodial cold-storage model — though lava.xyz again markets loans as "fully Bitcoin-collateralized and self-custodial" as of September 2026, with no mention of DLCs anywhere on the page. Atomic Finance sunset its own consumer app in 2025 and atomic.finance no longer resolves, but its node-dlc library is still maintained (see Implementations).

Operational considerations

• Oracle availability: parties must trust the oracle to publish the outcome. Multiple oracles → "DLC with k-of-n oracles" combines attestations.
• CET storage: pre-signed CETs (per outcome) can total megabytes of data per contract. Both parties must persist their share.
• Fee management: each pre-signed CET has a fixed fee at construction time. If mempool fee rates spike, settlement may not confirm. Mitigation: CPFP via anchor outputs, RBF if not pre-signed immutably, or fee-bump-via-replacement on a per-CET basis.

Security caveats

• Oracle compromise = funds at risk. Use multi-oracle (k-of-n) structure for high-value contracts.
• Replay across CETs — adaptor points must be unique per outcome (built-in via e_outcome derivation).
• Refund path must always exist; otherwise oracle outage = permanent fund lock.

Common pitfalls

• Underestimating CET storage requirements for fine-grained numerical contracts.
• Hard-coding fee rates instead of using anchor outputs / fee bumping.
• Trusting a single oracle for high-value contracts.
• Confusing DLC oracles (which are just signers, no chain) with chain oracles like UMA, Chainlink, etc.

See also

• adaptor-sigs/SKILL.md
• schnorr/SKILL.md
• ../../libraries/rust-dlc/SKILL.md
• ../../privacy/atomic-swaps/SKILL.md