From subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com Fri Mar 6 07:03:20 2020 From: subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com (Subhra Mazumdar) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 12:33:20 +0530 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Locking of funds by both parties in HTLC to enforce penalty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can you send the draft on fair atomic swap? Also the scenario stated in the pdf you have shared is based on exchange of asset. But here I am not trying to work on different ledger A to B and B to A. Here it deals with just simple transfer of funds from A to B. So whatever HTLC A establishes with B, is it not the case where just one HTLC from A to B is enough? Why do we need another HTLC to be established from B to A ? To clarify this, we have two situation - 1. HTLC A & B (on channel AB): both A and B lock say 0.1 BTC each i.e. 0.2 BTC 2. HTLC A&B (on channel AB) : A locks 0.1 BTC, HTLC B&A (on channel BA): B locks 0.1 BTC Pardon me if I am wrong but I am still confused why situation 1 will not be possible ? On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 12:00 PM Lloyd Fournier wrote: > Hi Subhra, > > Afaik, the only problem is the one you identified, it doesn't work across > multiple hops but only for the final hop. This penalty idea is the basis > for doing atomc swaps fairly: > https://coblox.tech/docs/financial_crypto19.pdf > > LL > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 4:58 PM Subhra Mazumdar < > subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> I was reading the paper by Poon and Dryja on Bitcoin Lightning >> Network and was going through the construction of HTLC. Suppose 2 parties A >> and B have a channel with each party locking 0.5 BTC. Suppose A wants to >> transfer 0.1 BTC to B contingent to the knowledge of R : H=h(R) produced >> within a locktime of say t days. So the script output for A is - >> 1. 0.4 BTC to A >> 2. 0.5 BTC to B >> 3. 0.1 BTC locked in HTLC between A & B. >> Why we cannot set the terms as say 0.4 BTC to A, 0.2 BTC to B and 0.4 BTC >> to HTLC, where HTLC output can follow either of the paths - If B produces R >> within t days then it gets back 0.4 BTC else after t days A can broadcast >> with 0.4 BTC going to the A? This prevents B from not responding (and >> induce possibly griefing attack across a longer path by withholding the >> solution) since it will lose out 0.3 BTC. What can be the problem if the >> terms of HTLC itself tries to enforce a penalty on the counterparty? >> >> -- >> Yours sincerely, >> Subhra Mazumdar. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lightning-dev mailing list >> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >> > -- Yours sincerely, Subhra Mazumdar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: