From: Tejaswi Nadahalli <nadahalli@gmail•com>
To: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt•org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Matan Yehieli <matany@campus•technion.ac.il>,
Itay Tsabary <sitay@campus•technion.ac.il>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] MAD-HTLC
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 13:57:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAifmAS6jX5f4XThSw_ygFpCU7JVdmQSgVjOj+if3p4qeO8sNg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200628121517.f3l2mjcy7x4566v3@ganymede>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1259 bytes --]
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 2:16 PM David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> So, if I understand correctly, even a small amount of "myopic" hashrate
> and long timeouts---or modest amounts of hashrate and short
> timeouts---makes this attack unlikely to succeed (and, even in the cases
> where it does succeed, Bob will have to offer a very large bribe to
> compensate "rational" miners for their high chance of losing out on
> gaining any transaction fees).
>
We were separately working on a similar problem, and wrote a paper as well:
https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/774 *
We look at the Alice's-Fees/Bob's-Bribe ratio. We also look at "strong" and
"weak" miners in this context. If a miner is weak, their hash-rate is lower
than this fees/bribe ratio. If they are strong, their hash rate is more
than this fees/bribe ratio. In this setting, it turns out that if there are
only strong miners, Bob will win. If there is at least one weak miner,
Alice has to win, given a reasonable timeout value. We found it awesome
that lightning has a parameter called "channel-reserve_satoshis", which
directly helps in countering this bribe by giving Alice some leeway in fees.
* Ph.D students want to write papers, unfortunately.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1840 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-29 11:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CABT1wW=X35HRVGuP-BHUhDrkBEw27+-iDkNnHWjRU-1mRkn0JQ@mail.gmail.com>
2020-06-23 6:41 ` Stanga
2020-06-23 9:48 ` ZmnSCPxj
2020-06-23 12:47 ` Stanga
2020-06-23 13:18 ` Stanga
2020-06-25 1:38 ` ZmnSCPxj
2020-06-25 3:26 ` Nadav Ivgi
2020-06-25 4:04 ` ZmnSCPxj
2020-06-25 4:35 ` Nadav Ivgi
2020-06-25 13:12 ` Bastien TEINTURIER
2020-06-28 16:41 ` David A. Harding
2020-07-04 21:05 ` ZmnSCPxj
2020-06-28 12:15 ` David A. Harding
2020-06-29 11:57 ` Tejaswi Nadahalli [this message]
2020-06-29 18:05 ` ZmnSCPxj
2020-06-30 6:28 ` Stanga
2020-06-30 6:45 ` Tejaswi Nadahalli
2020-07-01 16:58 ` ZmnSCPxj
2020-07-02 12:22 ` Tejaswi Nadahalli
2020-07-02 16:06 ` ZmnSCPxj
2020-07-03 9:43 ` Tejaswi Nadahalli
2020-07-03 10:16 ` ZmnSCPxj
2020-07-03 10:44 ` Tejaswi Nadahalli
[not found] ` <CAF-fr9Z7Xo8JmwtuQ7LE3k1=er+p7s9zPjH_8MNPwbxAfT1z7Q@mail.gmail.com>
2020-07-03 12:38 ` ZmnSCPxj
[not found] ` <CAF-fr9YhiOFD4n8rGF-MBkWeZmzBWfOJz+p8ggfLuDpioVRvyQ@mail.gmail.com>
2020-07-04 20:58 ` ZmnSCPxj
2020-07-05 9:03 ` Stanga
2020-07-06 11:13 ` Tejaswi Nadahalli
2020-07-02 12:39 ` Tejaswi Nadahalli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAAifmAS6jX5f4XThSw_ygFpCU7JVdmQSgVjOj+if3p4qeO8sNg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=nadahalli@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dave@dtrt$(echo .)org \
--cc=matany@campus$(echo .)technion.ac.il \
--cc=sitay@campus$(echo .)technion.ac.il \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox