Author: Peter Todd 2023-08-15 11:06:26+00:00
Published on: 2023-08-15T11:06:26+00:00
In this email, the sender discusses the counter-argument to a proposal and explains why backing up channel state with the counterparty is useful and less risky than it may seem. The main reason for this is that the client can prevent fraud by checking the backup each time they connect and closing the channel immediately if the wrong backup is provided.The email provides some definitions to clarify the terms used in the argument. "V_h" is defined as the honest lifetime value of the channel to Bob, which refers to the expected fees from the channel. "V_f" is the value that Bob can fraudulently obtain by giving Alice an incorrect backup. "P_d" represents the probability of data loss since the last time Alice connected to Bob.The protocol for normal operation is explained. Each time Alice connects to Bob, she asks for a copy of the most recent channel state backup. If the backup is incorrect, Alice force closes the channel. In the recovery phase, Alice asks for the backup again and uses it.The email then delves into the analysis of how Bob can profit from fraudulently giving Alice an incorrect backup. The condition for Bob to profit is when V_f multiplied by P_d is greater than V_h. It is noted that V_f is non-zero only when there is an increase in the channel balance from Alice's perspective. Additionally, P_d is a probability that Bob estimates based on the available information. The email provides an example scenario to illustrate these points.In conclusion, the email presents a counter-argument to a proposal regarding backing up channel state. It explains the protocol for normal operation and recovery, and analyzes the conditions under which fraud could be profitable for Bob.
Updated on: 2023-08-17T01:51:08.053795+00:00