Alejandro Ranchal Pedrosa [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-10-24 📝 Original message: Hi Margherita, can you be ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-10-24
📝 Original message:
Hi Margherita,
can you be a bit more specific about what you mean by double-spend
attacks?. A double-spend is not an attack that can be performed acting
solely on the Lightning Network, and as far as I know there are no nodes
being banned because of this.
If there are nodes that are being banned for tampering or sending wrong
information on the p2p Lightning Network (such as changing
channel_announcements or creating others that are wrong) is something I
am not completely sure (maybe in some implementations? or is it
specified in BOLT). In any case, this is not a double-spending attack.
Best,
Alejandro.
On 24/10/2018 00:18, Margherita Favaretto wrote:
> Dear Lighning-dev group,
> I am Margherita Favaretto, a Master student of Cyber Security at the
> Technical University of Denamark (DTU). I'm currently in San Francisco
> for one month, to advance with my academic research on Lightning
> Network by taking part to the networking events that are happening here.
> My research is focused on a remediation protocol for Lightning Network
> double-spend attacks. More in detail, my research wantsto mitigate the
> problem of false positives (e.g. software errors). Today, attacking
> nodes get excluded from the network, without any distinction between a
> software bug or an "Eve" malicious node.
> The solution, that I'm calling a "trusted remediation" gossip
> protocol, wants to solve: the identification of a false positive; the
> communication to other nodes; and the remediation payments mechanism.
> I would really appreciate an open feedback about the relevance of this
> issue, and which is the best way to be in contact with you.
> Your help would help me to focus my research on the right issues, and
> open a discussion about my assumptions and the related work that could
> help me. The goal is to give my contribution to this project and be
> actively part of the group as an independent researcher.
> Any thoughts/suggestions are really appreciated. I'm available for
> possible collaborations outside of this scope with people interested
> on this research topic.
> Thank you in advance,
> Margherita Favaretto
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20181024/1dc3765b/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:
Hi Margherita,
can you be a bit more specific about what you mean by double-spend
attacks?. A double-spend is not an attack that can be performed acting
solely on the Lightning Network, and as far as I know there are no nodes
being banned because of this.
If there are nodes that are being banned for tampering or sending wrong
information on the p2p Lightning Network (such as changing
channel_announcements or creating others that are wrong) is something I
am not completely sure (maybe in some implementations? or is it
specified in BOLT). In any case, this is not a double-spending attack.
Best,
Alejandro.
On 24/10/2018 00:18, Margherita Favaretto wrote:
> Dear Lighning-dev group,
> I am Margherita Favaretto, a Master student of Cyber Security at the
> Technical University of Denamark (DTU). I'm currently in San Francisco
> for one month, to advance with my academic research on Lightning
> Network by taking part to the networking events that are happening here.
> My research is focused on a remediation protocol for Lightning Network
> double-spend attacks. More in detail, my research wantsto mitigate the
> problem of false positives (e.g. software errors). Today, attacking
> nodes get excluded from the network, without any distinction between a
> software bug or an "Eve" malicious node.
> The solution, that I'm calling a "trusted remediation" gossip
> protocol, wants to solve: the identification of a false positive; the
> communication to other nodes; and the remediation payments mechanism.
> I would really appreciate an open feedback about the relevance of this
> issue, and which is the best way to be in contact with you.
> Your help would help me to focus my research on the right issues, and
> open a discussion about my assumptions and the related work that could
> help me. The goal is to give my contribution to this project and be
> actively part of the group as an independent researcher.
> Any thoughts/suggestions are really appreciated. I'm available for
> possible collaborations outside of this scope with people interested
> on this research topic.
> Thank you in advance,
> Margherita Favaretto
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20181024/1dc3765b/attachment.html>;