Author: Mats Jerratsch 2015-08-11 20:19:24
Published on: 2015-08-11T20:19:24+00:00
In a conversation between Mats Jerratsch and Joseph Poon, the topic of a hypothetical hostage negotiation was discussed. The scenario involved Alice resubmitting a mutated version of Commitment 20, causing Bob to lose 1 BTC. However, it was pointed out that since the 1 BTC in Commitment 20 goes directly to Bob and not a multi-sig address, only Alice would be harmed by mutating the channel transaction. It was also noted that Bob has both keys of the two-of-two multisig and would only lose funds due to blockchain fees. Joseph Poon further explained that setting a reserve requirement could not mitigate this scenario since Alice could still carry out the attack if she had more money than Bob. However, it was suggested that the minimum stealable amount of Alice should be higher than any sum of concurrent payments minus the blockchain fees. This way, Bob could claim all payments and remain in a positive net balance, as long as he had an incentive to clear out payments of the channel. The conversation ended with Mats Jerratsch signing off.
Updated on: 2023-05-23T19:12:58.170896+00:00