Subhra Mazumdar [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2020-03-06 📝 Original message: Can you send the draft on ...
📅 Original date posted:2020-03-06
📝 Original message:
Can you send the draft on fair atomic swap? Also the scenario stated in the
pdf you have shared is based on exchange of asset. But here I am not trying
to work on different ledger A to B and B to A. Here it deals with just
simple transfer of funds from A to B. So whatever HTLC A establishes with
B, is it not the case where just one HTLC from A to B is enough? Why do we
need another HTLC to be established from B to A ? To clarify this, we have
two situation -
1. HTLC A & B (on channel AB): both A and B lock say 0.1 BTC each i.e. 0.2
BTC
2. HTLC A&B (on channel AB) : A locks 0.1 BTC, HTLC B&A (on channel BA): B
locks 0.1 BTC
Pardon me if I am wrong but I am still confused why situation 1 will not be
possible ?
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 12:00 PM Lloyd Fournier <lloyd.fourn at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Subhra,
>
> Afaik, the only problem is the one you identified, it doesn't work across
> multiple hops but only for the final hop. This penalty idea is the basis
> for doing atomc swaps fairly:
> https://coblox.tech/docs/financial_crypto19.pdf
>
> LL
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 4:58 PM Subhra Mazumdar <
> subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I was reading the paper by Poon and Dryja on Bitcoin Lightning
>> Network and was going through the construction of HTLC. Suppose 2 parties A
>> and B have a channel with each party locking 0.5 BTC. Suppose A wants to
>> transfer 0.1 BTC to B contingent to the knowledge of R : H=h(R) produced
>> within a locktime of say t days. So the script output for A is -
>> 1. 0.4 BTC to A
>> 2. 0.5 BTC to B
>> 3. 0.1 BTC locked in HTLC between A & B.
>> Why we cannot set the terms as say 0.4 BTC to A, 0.2 BTC to B and 0.4 BTC
>> to HTLC, where HTLC output can follow either of the paths - If B produces R
>> within t days then it gets back 0.4 BTC else after t days A can broadcast
>> with 0.4 BTC going to the A? This prevents B from not responding (and
>> induce possibly griefing attack across a longer path by withholding the
>> solution) since it will lose out 0.3 BTC. What can be the problem if the
>> terms of HTLC itself tries to enforce a penalty on the counterparty?
>>
>> --
>> Yours sincerely,
>> Subhra Mazumdar.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lightning-dev mailing list
>> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>>
>
--
Yours sincerely,
Subhra Mazumdar.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20200306/0f0cf04d/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:
Can you send the draft on fair atomic swap? Also the scenario stated in the
pdf you have shared is based on exchange of asset. But here I am not trying
to work on different ledger A to B and B to A. Here it deals with just
simple transfer of funds from A to B. So whatever HTLC A establishes with
B, is it not the case where just one HTLC from A to B is enough? Why do we
need another HTLC to be established from B to A ? To clarify this, we have
two situation -
1. HTLC A & B (on channel AB): both A and B lock say 0.1 BTC each i.e. 0.2
BTC
2. HTLC A&B (on channel AB) : A locks 0.1 BTC, HTLC B&A (on channel BA): B
locks 0.1 BTC
Pardon me if I am wrong but I am still confused why situation 1 will not be
possible ?
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 12:00 PM Lloyd Fournier <lloyd.fourn at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Subhra,
>
> Afaik, the only problem is the one you identified, it doesn't work across
> multiple hops but only for the final hop. This penalty idea is the basis
> for doing atomc swaps fairly:
> https://coblox.tech/docs/financial_crypto19.pdf
>
> LL
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 4:58 PM Subhra Mazumdar <
> subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I was reading the paper by Poon and Dryja on Bitcoin Lightning
>> Network and was going through the construction of HTLC. Suppose 2 parties A
>> and B have a channel with each party locking 0.5 BTC. Suppose A wants to
>> transfer 0.1 BTC to B contingent to the knowledge of R : H=h(R) produced
>> within a locktime of say t days. So the script output for A is -
>> 1. 0.4 BTC to A
>> 2. 0.5 BTC to B
>> 3. 0.1 BTC locked in HTLC between A & B.
>> Why we cannot set the terms as say 0.4 BTC to A, 0.2 BTC to B and 0.4 BTC
>> to HTLC, where HTLC output can follow either of the paths - If B produces R
>> within t days then it gets back 0.4 BTC else after t days A can broadcast
>> with 0.4 BTC going to the A? This prevents B from not responding (and
>> induce possibly griefing attack across a longer path by withholding the
>> solution) since it will lose out 0.3 BTC. What can be the problem if the
>> terms of HTLC itself tries to enforce a penalty on the counterparty?
>>
>> --
>> Yours sincerely,
>> Subhra Mazumdar.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lightning-dev mailing list
>> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>>
>
--
Yours sincerely,
Subhra Mazumdar.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20200306/0f0cf04d/attachment.html>;