Author: Rusty Russell 2015-07-28 01:38:05
Published on: 2015-07-28T01:38:05+00:00
In a recent email exchange between Joseph Poon and Rusty Russell, they discussed the need for a contestation period in order to prevent an older version of a transaction from being broadcast through a credible threat. According to the rule, all outputs which are redeemable by A must be delayed if it's A's commitment transaction. For HTLCs, this means that timeout returns for HTLCs A initiates must be OP_CSV delayed and payments for HTLCs A receives must be delayed. The scripts in the 0.1 draft were found to be a bit messed up and missing a delay. The fixed A offers HTLC to B case was later provided by Rusty Russell in the email thread. The current/unexpired HTLCs will have the same payout and enforcement, but there is a risk of broadcasting older commitments and stealing the HTLC payout. If A broadcasts an older commitment, B can steal the HTLC payout as designed.
Updated on: 2023-05-23T18:39:54.689452+00:00