From rusty at rustcorp.com.au  Tue Aug 25 01:20:50 2015
From: rusty at rustcorp.com.au (Rusty Russell)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:50:50 +0930
Subject: [Lightning-dev] Loop attack with onion routing..
In-Reply-To: <CAJS_LCUnm=bCS=j6QBjcCimJOtmHUi_wPG-9RQN=8UZQJCe_Ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <874mjujyqe.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CAJS_LCVpP7cT=nHxr6ThR_5HAMA9v-cO-Bzzpnp8PCcO6k1vkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<87k2sljyci.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CAJS_LCV5ghA6HNw0DoCtF10Psw35fDckc=CPzuCd3iYJy2fHcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<878u91j6lf.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CAJS_LCUnm=bCS=j6QBjcCimJOtmHUi_wPG-9RQN=8UZQJCe_Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <874mjojh8t.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>

Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au> writes:
> On 24 August 2015 at 12:58, Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> But maybe Dave could have a different key for each channel, and choose them
> independently of his lightning network id as used for routing (and the
> corresponding public key used for onion routing)?

Yep.

> But if the key isn't linked, then Carol could construct her own
> "Carol-in-a-Dave-suit" set of keys, and make a fake "channel closure"
> transaction to convince Bob that Dave was being bad,

As I said before, you could never use this to convince anyone that
anyone was bad anyway.

Maybe Carol ignored Dave's perfectly valid reply.  Maybe Dave didn't
reply.  You can't tell.

> It would cost a
> bitcoin transaction and lock up her bitcoins for the timeout period
> (assuming she never finds out R), though -- but I'm not sure that's enough?

Someone bled (in fees and delayed funds).  That's hopefully enough; at
least it cost them to inconvenience you.

Cheers,
Rusty.