đź“… Original date posted:2020-04-02
đź“ť Original message:
Good morning Nadav,
> I could be missing something, but it seems to me like the proposal to close channels after a soft timeout unless non-cooperation can be proven upstream adds a cost to the attacker of two on-chain transactions, which they can immediately revoke (as they know both pieces to the revocation priv key), but still allows very long lock-ups of other's funds (with a 10x multiplier if they choose a long route). I do think that this is certainly an improvement on what we have now but I'm not sure it properly punishes the attacker in its current form.
Ah, right, E knows the revocation for the unilateral close of EE, because it is a self-channel, sigh.
And by this revocation clause it can claim the money immediately and put it into a channel as well.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g5…3ms3l
2023-06-09 12:59:23
in reply to nevent1q…6u3t
Author Public Key
npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3lPublished at
2023-06-09 12:59:23Event JSON
{
"id": "0de8256058d6d1f9befd2c4103ce25fe2a9d70cc0a1e261569aa1e9af5d1046f",
"pubkey": "4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861",
"created_at": 1686315563,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5e9b3eb7b6e686adb024bff8716ce0db1903914f4eed2a9ca1348e890d04a69e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"881c9e0df81df1f35fc327a31bd590193e71eceaf77b336c59ef89521dab8f54",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4640dfa33a2404507c1177a87aa949fcec805be1e1599e1df9bc823c35f5e208"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2020-04-02\n📝 Original message:\nGood morning Nadav,\n\n\u003e I could be missing something, but it seems to me like the proposal to close channels after a soft timeout unless non-cooperation can be proven upstream adds a cost to the attacker of two on-chain transactions, which they can immediately revoke (as they know both pieces to the revocation priv key), but still allows very long lock-ups of other's funds (with a 10x multiplier if they choose a long route). I do think that this is certainly an improvement on what we have now but I'm not sure it properly punishes the attacker in its current form.\n\nAh, right, E knows the revocation for the unilateral close of EE, because it is a self-channel, sigh.\nAnd by this revocation clause it can claim the money immediately and put it into a channel as well.\n\nRegards,\nZmnSCPxj",
"sig": "9d6be9e9a5ab99552ebaaadb7fa700157a4315442213d4bd5e0da2bb5c3a74db259748d1419172196717a0495358f4104c0769550760a272285c54ca3a5c934d"
}