On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 03:36:30PM -1000, David A. Harding wrote:
> On 2024-03-19 04:24, Peter Todd wrote:
> > To reduce trust you could do an automated, multiple round, signing
> > scheme where
> > the service signs transations with higher and higher fee-rates in
> > exchange for
> > most funds over LN.
> 
> When the service thinks the user has paid all that they're going to pay,
> what stops them from replacing their transaction one more time with a
> version that does not sponsor the user's transaction?

That at least is mitigated a bit by the fact that the earlier versions existed
and were valid; it's still a potentially useful reduction in trust as the
service needs to be able to do something economically useful with the high-fee
transaction for it to be a profitable attack.

As I said, I'm suggesting a way to reduce trust. Not eliminate it.

> Also, what stops the
> service from selling the same space in a sponsor transaction to multiple
> users at once, e.g. customers Alice and Bob each iterate with the service
> many times until they get a sponsor with as much fee as they want, but when
> they go to broadcast, they discover that their transactions conflict, so one
> of them paid for nothing?

That might actually be a weaker attack than the first: you can watch a mempool,
unknown to the service, to see if you recieve the transaction you paid for. If
you don't, there's a reasonable chance they're trying to rip you off.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/ZgQPJgXXFOuxVTkV%40petertodd.org.