Tejaswi Nadahalli [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2020-07-03 📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2020-07-03
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:17 PM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In fact, one rule of thumb might be that wherever watchtowers are
> required, a timelocked bribe might be possible.
>
> I think a better heuristic is that, if the logic of the construction
> assumes "transaction with earlier locktime supersedes transaction with
> later locktime", then it is timelocked-bribery-vulnerable.
>
That's true by definition. Timelocked bribes are, well, going to be
possible when there are timelocks. I was going more for an "indirect clue"
that wherever a watchtower is proposed, a timelocked bribe is possible.
This is entirely a pedantic point :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20200703/13a76f16/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:17 PM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In fact, one rule of thumb might be that wherever watchtowers are
> required, a timelocked bribe might be possible.
>
> I think a better heuristic is that, if the logic of the construction
> assumes "transaction with earlier locktime supersedes transaction with
> later locktime", then it is timelocked-bribery-vulnerable.
>
That's true by definition. Timelocked bribes are, well, going to be
possible when there are timelocks. I was going more for an "indirect clue"
that wherever a watchtower is proposed, a timelocked bribe is possible.
This is entirely a pedantic point :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20200703/13a76f16/attachment.html>;