fiatjaf [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2019-11-14 📝 Original message: Hello, What happens ...
📅 Original date posted:2019-11-14
📝 Original message:
Hello,
What happens between two peers is no business of others. They can do what
you said if they're cooperating, and many other dirty tricks. And that's
not a problem at all for other nodes.
The only thing they can't do for not is advertise a channel without telling
others where it was funded on the chain, but that's just for antispam
reasons (as other nodes must keep track of all announced channels) as far
as I know.
On Thursday, November 14, 2019, Subhra Mazumdar <
subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> My doubt might be silly and apologies for the same. Suppose in a
payment channel network say 2 parties B and C are malicious, controlled by
same adversary. They had initially opened a channel of 1 BTC. But suppose
they get 3 transaction request will flow value of 0.4 BTC each. After 1st 2
transaction, B and C has capacity of 0.2 BTC. But what if BC reports an
incorrect residual balance thereby accepting the 3rd transaction. Who will
keep track of this capacity violation since no one is keeping track of this
residual value ? If this case is true, then parties might resort to such a
strategy opening a low value channel but still accepting multiple
transactions where the total payment value of all transaction exceeds
channel capacity. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> --
> Yours sincerely,
> Subhra Mazumdar.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20191114/2ebb3c12/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:
Hello,
What happens between two peers is no business of others. They can do what
you said if they're cooperating, and many other dirty tricks. And that's
not a problem at all for other nodes.
The only thing they can't do for not is advertise a channel without telling
others where it was funded on the chain, but that's just for antispam
reasons (as other nodes must keep track of all announced channels) as far
as I know.
On Thursday, November 14, 2019, Subhra Mazumdar <
subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> My doubt might be silly and apologies for the same. Suppose in a
payment channel network say 2 parties B and C are malicious, controlled by
same adversary. They had initially opened a channel of 1 BTC. But suppose
they get 3 transaction request will flow value of 0.4 BTC each. After 1st 2
transaction, B and C has capacity of 0.2 BTC. But what if BC reports an
incorrect residual balance thereby accepting the 3rd transaction. Who will
keep track of this capacity violation since no one is keeping track of this
residual value ? If this case is true, then parties might resort to such a
strategy opening a low value channel but still accepting multiple
transactions where the total payment value of all transaction exceeds
channel capacity. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> --
> Yours sincerely,
> Subhra Mazumdar.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20191114/2ebb3c12/attachment.html>;