📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11
📝 Original message:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 08:42:50PM +0200, Mats Jerratsch wrote:
> Can you elaborate, why you think that the client is not able to close
> the channel? I think this is a misunderstanding on your side, which
> most of the rest of your post argues from. While there is a slight
> favor for the server in the channel design, there is nothing what
> prevents the client from broadcasting (and enforcing) the channel.
Ah, sorry, i'm reading it more closely now. I assumed only the server
had a copy since that what made the most sense to me under this kind of
asymmetric model, since it makes sense to not trust the client.
In this case, the client can hold up funds from the server completely
and attack the server by mutating their transaction.
Presume Alice and Bob have a channel open together. They both
contributed 0.5 bitcoin for a total balance of 1 BTC.
At Commitment 20, the channel state is 0 BTC to Alice and 1 to Bob.
At commitment 31, the channel state is 1 BTC to Alice and 0 to Bob.
Alice is the client and Bob is the server.
Presume Alice deicdes to be a jerk! She broadcasts a mutated (re-signed)
version of Commitment 20. The server is out 1 BTC! This is now a hostage
negotiation.
Let's presume that you set up some kind of reserve requirement instead:
At Commitment 20, the channel state is 0.05 BTC to Alice and 0.95 to Bob.
At commitment 31, the channel state is 0.95 BTC to Alice and 0.05 to Bob.
Again, Alice deicdes to be a jerk! She broadcasts a mutated (re-signed)
version of Commitment 20. The server is out 0.95 BTC! But wait, you say,
Alice might be out 0.05 of her own BTC. This model breaks down because
it's still a hostage scenario! Alice tells Bob, "hey, I know I have 0.05
BTC stuck here (and you have 0.9 stuck), but I'm rich. I don't care how
long it takes, how about you give me a 'tax' of 0.1 BTC. You'll get your
money back... well most of it, just sign this transaction where I get
0.15".
--
Joseph Poon
Joseph Poon [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ej…p9cq8
2023-06-09 12:43:57
in reply to nevent1q…r2ga
Author Public Key
npub1ej6vep7y2km5l6awukffelg8yeppkth2vjkjk9jypd5w336rxggs3p9cq8Published at
2023-06-09 12:43:57Event JSON
{
"id": "6824c8d434953c583c41e910fb114f51d1714fc99dcc771fa8512e6544654d13",
"pubkey": "ccb4cc87c455b74febaee5929cfd0726421b2eea64ad2b16440b68e8c7433211",
"created_at": 1686314637,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"66681ffe7bd947a6d8c9a87dbb7582790b0efc37d305797619761486e2dc1149",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4d579490488391182fc634e2cc91760a884762efc14be4885c21180d9a246816",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b8a27d18150405cdfcd44c0dd8db860f5270312300248389bf57ce555c784528"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11\n📝 Original message:\nOn Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 08:42:50PM +0200, Mats Jerratsch wrote:\n\u003e Can you elaborate, why you think that the client is not able to close\n\u003e the channel? I think this is a misunderstanding on your side, which\n\u003e most of the rest of your post argues from. While there is a slight\n\u003e favor for the server in the channel design, there is nothing what\n\u003e prevents the client from broadcasting (and enforcing) the channel.\n\nAh, sorry, i'm reading it more closely now. I assumed only the server\nhad a copy since that what made the most sense to me under this kind of\nasymmetric model, since it makes sense to not trust the client.\n\nIn this case, the client can hold up funds from the server completely\nand attack the server by mutating their transaction.\n\nPresume Alice and Bob have a channel open together. They both\ncontributed 0.5 bitcoin for a total balance of 1 BTC.\n\nAt Commitment 20, the channel state is 0 BTC to Alice and 1 to Bob.\nAt commitment 31, the channel state is 1 BTC to Alice and 0 to Bob.\n\nAlice is the client and Bob is the server.\n\nPresume Alice deicdes to be a jerk! She broadcasts a mutated (re-signed)\nversion of Commitment 20. The server is out 1 BTC! This is now a hostage\nnegotiation.\n\nLet's presume that you set up some kind of reserve requirement instead:\nAt Commitment 20, the channel state is 0.05 BTC to Alice and 0.95 to Bob.\nAt commitment 31, the channel state is 0.95 BTC to Alice and 0.05 to Bob.\n\nAgain, Alice deicdes to be a jerk! She broadcasts a mutated (re-signed)\nversion of Commitment 20. The server is out 0.95 BTC! But wait, you say,\nAlice might be out 0.05 of her own BTC. This model breaks down because\nit's still a hostage scenario! Alice tells Bob, \"hey, I know I have 0.05\nBTC stuck here (and you have 0.9 stuck), but I'm rich. I don't care how\nlong it takes, how about you give me a 'tax' of 0.1 BTC. You'll get your\nmoney back... well most of it, just sign this transaction where I get\n0.15\".\n\n-- \nJoseph Poon",
"sig": "61b172d7a3c9569d4c5c7cd66473672b186e7e17509b797965120c0cf9b170621454a023377e4c73e9322534df917969b1e181472da43e5a1d700607e51c0d75"
}