Bastien TEINTURIER [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2020-02-24 📝 Original message: Good morning list, After ...
📅 Original date posted:2020-02-24
📝 Original message:
Good morning list,
After exploring decoys [1], which is a cheap way of doing route blinding,
I'm turning back to exploring rendezvous.
The previous mails on the mailing list mentioned that there was a
technicality
to make the HMACs check out, but didn't provide a lot of details.
The issue is that the filler generation needs to take into account some hops
that will be added *later*, by the payer.
However it is quite easy to work-around, with a few space trade-offs.
Let's consider a typical rendezvous setup, where Alice wants to be paid via
rendezvous Bob, and Carol wants to pay that invoice:
Carol -> ... -> Bob -> ... -> Alice
If Alice knows how many bytes Carol is going to use for her part of the
onion
payloads, Alice can easily take them into account when generating her
filler by
pre-pending the same amount of `0` bytes. It seems reasonable to impose a
fixed
number of onion bytes for each side of the rendezvous (650 each?) so Alice
would
know that amount.
When Carol completes the onion with her part of the route, she simply needs
to
generate filler data for her part of the route following the normal Sphinx
protocol
and apply it to the onion she found in the invoice.
But the tricky part is that she needs to give Bob a way of generating the
same
filler data to unapply it. Then all HMACs correctly check out.
I see two ways of doing that:
* Carol simply sends that filler (650 bytes), probably via a TLV in
`update_add_htlc`.
This means every intermediate hop needs to forward that, which is painful
and
potentially leaking too much data.
* Carol provides Bob with the rho keys used to generate her filler, and the
length
used by each hop. This leaks to Bob an upper bound on the number of hops
and the
number of bytes sent to each hop.
Since shift-and-xor kind of crypto is hard to read as equations, but very
easy to
read as diagrams, I spent a bit of time doing beautiful ASCII art [2].
Don't hesitate
to have a look at it to find more details about how that works. You can
also print
that on t-shirts to look fancy at conferences. I also have some sample code
working
in eclair [3] for those who can read Scala without getting headaches.
Are there other tricks we can use to reconcile both sides of the onion at
Bob's?
Maybe cdecker (or someone else) has an ace up his sleeve for me there? :)
One important thing to note is that rendezvous on normal onions will be
costly to
integrate into invoices: it takes 1366 bytes to include one onion, and if
we want
to handle route failures or let the sender use multi-part, we will need to
have a
handful of pre-encrypted onions in the invoice (hence a few kB, which may
not be
practical for QR codes).
But I did mention before that doing rendezvous on the trampoline onion
could have
better properties [4]. When doing that, having Carol transmit her filler
data only
to Bob, via the outer onion payload becomes practical and doesn't leak
information.
Multi-part would work with a single trampoline onion in the invoice (~500
bytes),
because nodes can do MPP between trampoline nodes thanks to the
onion-in-onion
construction. We simply need to decide the size of the trampoline onion to
allow
each side of the rendezvous to be able to insert a number of hops we're
comfortable
with. You can find more details in the "Rendezvous on a trampoline" section
of [2].
I'm really interested in other approaches to making rendezvous work with
the HMACs
correctly checking out. If people on this list have drafts, intuitions or
random
thoughts about possible constructions, please share them, I'd be happy to
dive into
them to explore alternatives to the one I found, hoping we can make this
work and
provide this feature to our users in the near future.
A small side-note on Hornet. Hornet does offer many features that I believe
we will
want in Lightning in the future. It may seem that doing a custom rendezvous
scheme
is a waste of time since we'll ditch it once/if we implement Hornet. While
that is
true in the long run, I believe that if we're able to find a rendezvous
scheme that
isn't too much work to implement, it makes sense to have something
available soon-ish.
Hornet will likely be a longer-term effort that we won't get as soon as
we'd like
(especially since it will probably require a network-wide update). But who
knows, maybe
we may see that we are trying to create many features that are already
built into Hornet
(rendezvous, directed message support, etc) and will decide to implement
Hornet sooner
than expected?
Cheers,
Bastien
[1]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-January/002435.html
[2] https://gist.github.com/t-bast/ab42a7f52eb2e73105557957c8359601
[3] https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair/tree/sphinx-rendezvous
[4]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2019-October/002237.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20200224/02d2cd82/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:
Good morning list,
After exploring decoys [1], which is a cheap way of doing route blinding,
I'm turning back to exploring rendezvous.
The previous mails on the mailing list mentioned that there was a
technicality
to make the HMACs check out, but didn't provide a lot of details.
The issue is that the filler generation needs to take into account some hops
that will be added *later*, by the payer.
However it is quite easy to work-around, with a few space trade-offs.
Let's consider a typical rendezvous setup, where Alice wants to be paid via
rendezvous Bob, and Carol wants to pay that invoice:
Carol -> ... -> Bob -> ... -> Alice
If Alice knows how many bytes Carol is going to use for her part of the
onion
payloads, Alice can easily take them into account when generating her
filler by
pre-pending the same amount of `0` bytes. It seems reasonable to impose a
fixed
number of onion bytes for each side of the rendezvous (650 each?) so Alice
would
know that amount.
When Carol completes the onion with her part of the route, she simply needs
to
generate filler data for her part of the route following the normal Sphinx
protocol
and apply it to the onion she found in the invoice.
But the tricky part is that she needs to give Bob a way of generating the
same
filler data to unapply it. Then all HMACs correctly check out.
I see two ways of doing that:
* Carol simply sends that filler (650 bytes), probably via a TLV in
`update_add_htlc`.
This means every intermediate hop needs to forward that, which is painful
and
potentially leaking too much data.
* Carol provides Bob with the rho keys used to generate her filler, and the
length
used by each hop. This leaks to Bob an upper bound on the number of hops
and the
number of bytes sent to each hop.
Since shift-and-xor kind of crypto is hard to read as equations, but very
easy to
read as diagrams, I spent a bit of time doing beautiful ASCII art [2].
Don't hesitate
to have a look at it to find more details about how that works. You can
also print
that on t-shirts to look fancy at conferences. I also have some sample code
working
in eclair [3] for those who can read Scala without getting headaches.
Are there other tricks we can use to reconcile both sides of the onion at
Bob's?
Maybe cdecker (or someone else) has an ace up his sleeve for me there? :)
One important thing to note is that rendezvous on normal onions will be
costly to
integrate into invoices: it takes 1366 bytes to include one onion, and if
we want
to handle route failures or let the sender use multi-part, we will need to
have a
handful of pre-encrypted onions in the invoice (hence a few kB, which may
not be
practical for QR codes).
But I did mention before that doing rendezvous on the trampoline onion
could have
better properties [4]. When doing that, having Carol transmit her filler
data only
to Bob, via the outer onion payload becomes practical and doesn't leak
information.
Multi-part would work with a single trampoline onion in the invoice (~500
bytes),
because nodes can do MPP between trampoline nodes thanks to the
onion-in-onion
construction. We simply need to decide the size of the trampoline onion to
allow
each side of the rendezvous to be able to insert a number of hops we're
comfortable
with. You can find more details in the "Rendezvous on a trampoline" section
of [2].
I'm really interested in other approaches to making rendezvous work with
the HMACs
correctly checking out. If people on this list have drafts, intuitions or
random
thoughts about possible constructions, please share them, I'd be happy to
dive into
them to explore alternatives to the one I found, hoping we can make this
work and
provide this feature to our users in the near future.
A small side-note on Hornet. Hornet does offer many features that I believe
we will
want in Lightning in the future. It may seem that doing a custom rendezvous
scheme
is a waste of time since we'll ditch it once/if we implement Hornet. While
that is
true in the long run, I believe that if we're able to find a rendezvous
scheme that
isn't too much work to implement, it makes sense to have something
available soon-ish.
Hornet will likely be a longer-term effort that we won't get as soon as
we'd like
(especially since it will probably require a network-wide update). But who
knows, maybe
we may see that we are trying to create many features that are already
built into Hornet
(rendezvous, directed message support, etc) and will decide to implement
Hornet sooner
than expected?
Cheers,
Bastien
[1]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-January/002435.html
[2] https://gist.github.com/t-bast/ab42a7f52eb2e73105557957c8359601
[3] https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair/tree/sphinx-rendezvous
[4]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2019-October/002237.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20200224/02d2cd82/attachment-0001.html>;