1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
|
Return-Path: <dp@simplexum.com>
Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6FF3C016F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 14 May 2020 04:49:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3D387CD4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 14 May 2020 04:49:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id N-iq2bhYHFiQ
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 14 May 2020 04:49:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.ruggedbytes.com (mail.ruggedbytes.com [88.99.30.248])
by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B420187C49
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 14 May 2020 04:49:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.ruggedbytes.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.ruggedbytes.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 132EF260020D;
Thu, 14 May 2020 04:49:30 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simplexum.com;
s=mail; t=1589431770;
bh=TpmRgeeg0WQc55Xg9LuvWXVcdiUtmJFv4tXOYuE5lxs=;
h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References;
b=Tp+VQ6JsxPfCd6BS392fwcceWOOKR0Xk+QD6NgvW2TUrV75bzO+Hma+BsUBxj1rD/
d2jyz8fysc2V3HEDCNmFQ0a6ERsmd51AZyLpa3ZDaiEhJgWED6cLM7Q/PCkI+mLfPd
H3HJ9gbC8BLenMjTl21gdL4zrf8aSaeu3C/0yVVk=
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 09:52:15 +0500
From: Dmitry Petukhov <dp@simplexum.com>
To: Ruben Somsen <rsomsen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20200514095215.4ea20666@simplexum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPv7TjbZVYTztQLd2dxjzFajhPTg23iWtapkVBzz+z0q=pH2rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200513220222.24953c0a@simplexum.com>
<CAPv7TjbZVYTztQLd2dxjzFajhPTg23iWtapkVBzz+z0q=pH2rw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: simplexum.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 14 May 2020 04:59:36 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] TLA+ specification for Succint Atomic Swap
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 04:49:34 -0000
=D0=92 Wed, 13 May 2020 21:03:17 +0200
Ruben Somsen <rsomsen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or perhaps you're referring to the issue ZmnSCPxj pointed out after
> that, where refund transaction #1 and the success transaction could
> both become valid at the same time. It would make sense for the test
> to pick up on that, but I believe that is ultimately also not an
> issue (see my last reply in the thread).
This one.
The issue as I see it: Bob can not broadcast success_tx and wait until
Alice has broadcasted refund_tx_1. While refund_tx_1 is in the mempool,
Bob gives success_tx to the friendly miner to have a chance to
invalidate success_tx. Bob already learned secretAlice, so he grabs
his LTC back. If the Bob-friendly miner has luck, success_tx is
confirmed while refund_tx_1 is invalidated, and Bob now have both LTC
and BTC, while Alice is out of her BTC.
> >I did not understand what the destination of Alice&Bob cooperative
> >spend =20
> of refund_tx#1 will be
>=20
> This transaction can be spent by Alice & Bob right away or by Alice a
> day later (in relative time, so the tx has to confirm first). The
> Alice & Bob condition is there purely to ensure that Bob can spend
> the money before Alice once he receives her key at the end of the
> protocol.
Ah, so this is possible because of the step 5 in the diagram: ``Alice
gives Bob her key ("Alice")'' -- As I understand, this is a way to deny
Alice to use refund_tx_1.
Then if Alice gives her _key_ to Bob before Bob has to share secretBob
via success_tx, could Bob just spend the Alice&Bob output of the
very first, "commitment" transaction that locks BTC ? Bob will receive
BTC, and the LTC can be locked forever, but Bob doesn't care, he got
his BTC.
|
