📅 Original date posted:2016-08-17
📝 Original message:
Christian Decker <decker.christian at gmail.com> writes:
> I agree that the realm byte is a sensible addition. To trigger this we
> would need to have multiple channels, on different chains, using the
> same identifiers between two nodes. Only in this case we'd have an
> ambiguity where to transfer the funds. Assuming we have the route A ->
> B => C, where => indicates two channels, one in litecoin and one in
> bitcoin, and both channels use the same identity for C. Then the
> instruction to forward 0.01 units to C is ambiguous, as it could be
> denominated in either litecoin or bitcoin.
>
> While not dangerous it is rather unfortunate as it results in
> guesswork. It is not dangerous because if A transferred litecoin to B
> then B will (hopefully) never forward a higher value to C using
> bitcoin, and if it were bitcoin then the final recipient would not
> sign off an inferior amount than what he expected.
Worse case: C is a charity, accepting donations. A's software screwed
up and didn't realize C was litecoin, not bitcoin. B collects a huge
fee, C gets tiny donation.
Cheers,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-09 12:46:27
in reply to nevent1q…7s6t
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-09 12:46:27Event JSON
{
"id": "c13e8ec28978d1043ebd1f152ed72ce8133caa2d3ca13bb61695b294af13d4c8",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686314787,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f166a20039cde752a8ba4e6cccc22d4b2719f9a29840f0c295641243ae59d83f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cb9ab5c71a68a03b7550ea1f1629868ce5f135ffa74b411f0a7ea2bcaa9371d9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"72cd40332ec782dd0a7f63acb03e3b6fdafa6d91bd1b6125cd8b7117a1bb8057"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-08-17\n📝 Original message:\nChristian Decker \u003cdecker.christian at gmail.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e I agree that the realm byte is a sensible addition. To trigger this we\n\u003e would need to have multiple channels, on different chains, using the\n\u003e same identifiers between two nodes. Only in this case we'd have an\n\u003e ambiguity where to transfer the funds. Assuming we have the route A -\u003e\n\u003e B =\u003e C, where =\u003e indicates two channels, one in litecoin and one in\n\u003e bitcoin, and both channels use the same identity for C. Then the\n\u003e instruction to forward 0.01 units to C is ambiguous, as it could be\n\u003e denominated in either litecoin or bitcoin.\n\u003e\n\u003e While not dangerous it is rather unfortunate as it results in\n\u003e guesswork. It is not dangerous because if A transferred litecoin to B\n\u003e then B will (hopefully) never forward a higher value to C using\n\u003e bitcoin, and if it were bitcoin then the final recipient would not\n\u003e sign off an inferior amount than what he expected.\n\nWorse case: C is a charity, accepting donations. A's software screwed\nup and didn't realize C was litecoin, not bitcoin. B collects a huge\nfee, C gets tiny donation.\n\nCheers,\nRusty.",
"sig": "47eab2cd2033b4e07fd4ad719afc98594eedd30fdf66342b7cf20afaa9ddb5d2712e675a65fd02651ac7c8cad1ce8966be0889da7fc4092a8f0a0c7ceff0c5e3"
}