š
Original date posted:2018-11-09
š Original message:
Good morning Johan,
> C must also make sure the detour route stays within the fee limit of course.
This is indeed quite correct. Contrariwise, if the detour route charges a fee that is even just 0.001 satoshi lower than the fee that C would charge, then it would still be rational to make this attempt: there is a nonzero change to earn 0.001 satoshi, whereas the alternative (fail the route) earns C 0 fees.
Another issue, is that the by inserting the switch-ephemeral-keys hop packet, a hop packet at the end may be pushed off, and C cannot know this. However, the same argument applies: the alternative is earning 0 fees.
Christian Decker pointed out that the D->C->A cycle could be rebalanced so that the C<->D link could pass the payment through. However, this has the slight disadvantage. If the route actually terminates to a payee further off at F, and it fails between F and E, then C has already paid for the rebalancing. Using this technique, C neither earns nor loses money.
This also increases the anonymity set, of rendez-vous routing. A rendez-vous supporting node may be used, not for rendez-vous, but instead, this link-level payment rerouting.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20181109/5c3ff072/attachment.html>;
ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g5ā¦3ms3l
2023-06-09 12:52:23
in reply to nevent1qā¦8mz6
Author Public Key
npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3lPublished at
2023-06-09 12:52:23Event JSON
{
"id": "0e4b7d6c9e4d3b1d5458455e1f5c7e9a7b9dbe89932f5ee51cce42aedf7585b0",
"pubkey": "4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861",
"created_at": 1686315143,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f4b5ffab7a9c96d8928a76b4653d399422785cf29dac19cdb8e24eff6d895c9a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4b6343e3199fe0c290667032740cb029cb290742f803e403dc4a2e8bdff32156",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"0866a9dfe968ace2a1cf22ff20e534684828184e3a538212dddae2abbb41465f"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2018-11-09\nš Original message:\nGood morning Johan,\n\n\u003e C must also make sure the detour route stays within the fee limit of course.\n\nThis is indeed quite correct. Contrariwise, if the detour route charges a fee that is even just 0.001 satoshi lower than the fee that C would charge, then it would still be rational to make this attempt: there is a nonzero change to earn 0.001 satoshi, whereas the alternative (fail the route) earns C 0 fees.\n\nAnother issue, is that the by inserting the switch-ephemeral-keys hop packet, a hop packet at the end may be pushed off, and C cannot know this. However, the same argument applies: the alternative is earning 0 fees.\n\nChristian Decker pointed out that the D-\u003eC-\u003eA cycle could be rebalanced so that the C\u003c-\u003eD link could pass the payment through. However, this has the slight disadvantage. If the route actually terminates to a payee further off at F, and it fails between F and E, then C has already paid for the rebalancing. Using this technique, C neither earns nor loses money.\n\nThis also increases the anonymity set, of rendez-vous routing. A rendez-vous supporting node may be used, not for rendez-vous, but instead, this link-level payment rerouting.\n\nRegards,\nZmnSCPxj\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20181109/5c3ff072/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "b3b21236074a71554deab9a7ac4915a48c1cdc619cdd78b48aa5edb6fdb482eb66fea80c63439986a6c70591bf6b2928e6ba6334816ce21edc5e16eb031d1d2a"
}