From rusty at rustcorp.com.au  Tue Jan  8 05:11:23 2019
From: rusty at rustcorp.com.au (Rusty Russell)
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 15:41:23 +1030
Subject: [Lightning-dev] An Argument For Single-Asset Lightning Network
In-Reply-To: <LHGlDfSzQ88JmUdHdx1E5aMkDfMrxQO1HZQ4fVWvMk16tSV60idZMqzf-rPUxYKlCF0pYsqq-H1kCyCKe5ax8luWlkmvEheJuny2lFSdKFM=@protonmail.com>
References: <LHGlDfSzQ88JmUdHdx1E5aMkDfMrxQO1HZQ4fVWvMk16tSV60idZMqzf-rPUxYKlCF0pYsqq-H1kCyCKe5ax8luWlkmvEheJuny2lFSdKFM=@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <878szvg2dg.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>

ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev <lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> HTLCs as American Call Option, or, How Lightning Currently Cannot Work Across Assets, or, An Argument For Single-Asset Lightning Network

Interesting.  FWIW, I believe that multi-asset LN will fail for a
related, but different reason: to prevent long-lived spam payments we
may require proof that something went wrong (ie. channel unilateral
close tx).  That won't be valid if it's from a different network,
resulting in the exchange point itself being penalized.  Thus they are
vulnerable to such a DoS.

Cheers,
Rusty.