Joost Jager [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-10-15 📝 Original message: On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2021-10-15
📝 Original message:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 4:21 PM Owen Gunden <ogunden at phauna.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 09:48:27AM +0200, Joost Jager wrote:
> > So how would things work out with a combination of both of the
> > proposals described in this mail? First we make probing free (free as
> > in no liquidity locked up) and then we'll require senders to pay for
> > failed payment attempts too. Failed payment attempts after a
> > successful probe should be extremely rate, so doesn't this fix the ux
> > issue with upfront fees?
>
> Why couldn't a malicious routing node (or group of colluding routing
> nodes) succeed the probe and then fail the payment in order to collect
> the failed payment fee?
>

Yes they could, but senders should be really suspicious when this happens.
It could happen occasionally because balances may have shifted in between
probe and payment. But if it keeps happening they may want to ban this
routing node for a long time. This may disincentivize the routing node
enough to respond honestly to probes.

Joost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211015/a7713880/attachment.html>;