MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABT1wW=X35HRVGuP-BHUhDrkBEw27+-iDkNnHWjRU-1mRkn0JQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABT1wW=KWtoo6zHs8=yUQ7vAYcFSdAzdpDJ9yfw6sJrLd6dN5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200628121517.f3l2mjcy7x4566v3@ganymede>
 <WYQRrIi65yvBWc9qsqCxHWadrMFtYPh2wI-IzVS15FBTFmpIXqHwj5yrj3Igpr-9sKygWsH4DkI_maWcULKKQb51Xp_xZBvKuPF_HmCvqb4=@protonmail.com>
 <CAAifmATmQSUUsEbouVYTNNMu-BT8vQiGvh3jwLNK4CUB11s7mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Fh70O0CqbkbLaOUEqRzIG3MOOZi_tYz69xRDPlIlF5tgTIPdYF9LyeoJjypo-agN9-WkuoXJD896R6CQygTozeHA_CFULp3k7007PioaDrs=@protonmail.com>
 <CAAifmARxvG+_Wo3zba6MCd=jxwesb2JhWAwRErq6QPVTe1AQEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YhzMZ419vB1BY4Opd3lwfSSJ6_4AIQUDDtZPPhyB2HgskDZv0DKCQlEOAFklskLp1mj5AZrI43VPXOslX25MO-3Fijl9pBWrWYlYiaERr70=@protonmail.com>
 <CAAifmATpg21K=yvi8OaPgr2esdtciu_uNLmNbA8983iht7Ru_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <-R0O_3IqpmbxNSONd1A2peCnpEIRs73ZELJgsBf06ygq4BGMo3Hg9h4OlXiGuIUyaITWixSY7LlgVyJ2MkAFQb7Y6I1gC8AXiAeS7eMlSso=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <-R0O_3IqpmbxNSONd1A2peCnpEIRs73ZELJgsBf06ygq4BGMo3Hg9h4OlXiGuIUyaITWixSY7LlgVyJ2MkAFQb7Y6I1gC8AXiAeS7eMlSso=@protonmail.com>
From: Tejaswi Nadahalli <nadahalli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 12:44:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAifmASfZbw3KgRBwbZoXwUmfpXGyaForwbVnh+KsB3+5s+WAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001689e405a9873817"
Cc: Matan Yehieli <matany@campus.technion.ac.il>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 Itay Tsabary <sitay@campus.technion.ac.il>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] MAD-HTLC
Precedence: list

--0000000000001689e405a9873817
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:17 PM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:

>
> > In fact, one rule of thumb might be that wherever watchtowers are
> required, a timelocked bribe might be possible.
>
> I think a better heuristic is that, if the logic of the construction
> assumes "transaction with earlier locktime supersedes transaction with
> later locktime", then it is timelocked-bribery-vulnerable.
>

That's true by definition. Timelocked bribes are, well, going to be
possible when there are timelocks. I was going more for an "indirect clue"
that wherever a watchtower is proposed, a timelocked bribe is possible.
This is entirely a pedantic point :-)

--0000000000001689e405a9873817
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:17 PM ZmnSCPxj =
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com">ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com</a>&=
gt; wrote:<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,2=
04);padding-left:1ex"><br>
&gt; In fact, one rule of thumb might be that wherever watchtowers are requ=
ired, a timelocked bribe might be possible.=C2=A0<br>
<br>
I think a better heuristic is that, if the logic of the construction assume=
s &quot;transaction with earlier locktime supersedes transaction with later=
 locktime&quot;, then it is timelocked-bribery-vulnerable.<br></blockquote>=
<div><br></div><div>That&#39;s true by definition. Timelocked bribes are, w=
ell, going to be possible when there are timelocks. I was going more for an=
 &quot;indirect clue&quot; that wherever a watchtower is proposed, a timelo=
cked bribe is possible. This is entirely a pedantic point :-)</div></div></=
div>

--0000000000001689e405a9873817--