From subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com  Fri Mar  6 07:33:58 2020
From: subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com (Subhra Mazumdar)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 13:03:58 +0530
Subject: [Lightning-dev] Locking of funds by both parties in HTLC to
 enforce penalty
In-Reply-To: <CAH5Bsr3Ke+x-ywSkKNp6AKjC+Oo3pVsNdXbpBLetrEVB3zkp+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPvY=RjNX_c7_icUB5me7earPybYs3qP_UO_aXGDHJ7PhSFRcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5Bsr0RQ5RzJYsVgH9O5cvqRMpD=Q4ELJLFYNGh3SVqVTkfGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPvY=Rjuae9RG=ZP-_BONDCHMRwcDsUg8Dcg+Zm9oQ1kgiC7=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5Bsr3Ke+x-ywSkKNp6AKjC+Oo3pVsNdXbpBLetrEVB3zkp+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPvY=Rh3cY+uk_edE7fQptMHRcyqjjt3hrfJ1PGkNTca+Rq02w@mail.gmail.com>

So that means if we follow a right to left approach for establishing HTLC
i.e. from B to C first then A to B, is there a chance? But I guess that's
doesn't sound logical. Also the point raised by you is valid. B can never
be punished if it is not possessing the secret at the point of
establishment of HTLC. So in that case this becomes a challenge, A to B , B
to A atomicity. What if A to B HTLC is established but B to A there is no
contract.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20200306/7f5dd937/attachment.html>