From ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com Tue May 22 22:50:02 2018 From: ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com (ZmnSCPxj) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 18:50:02 -0400 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Mitigations for loop attacks In-Reply-To: <1c4e8789-ed63-f06d-7c84-6dcba1f8a5f9@bitonic.nl> References: <871seljpak.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <1c4e8789-ed63-f06d-7c84-6dcba1f8a5f9@bitonic.nl> Message-ID: Good morning Corne, I think onion unpeeling never made it into the BOLT spec precisely due to the problems with it. I think the unpeeling in question is essentially a hop node (rather than the ultimate payer/source) unpeeling the onion in order to find out who was being slow. Perhaps the discussion regarding it is archived elsewhere; I do not know myself. Regards, ZmnSCPxj ?Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.? ??????? Original Message ??????? On May 22, 2018 11:47 PM, Corn? Plooy via Lightning-dev wrote: > > You missed the vital detail: that you must prove channel closure if you > > > > can't unpeel the onion further. That will hit an unresponsive party > > > > with a penalty.[1] > > Is this specified in a BOLT somewhere? I tried to find it several times, > > without success. > > CJP > > Lightning-dev mailing list > > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev