Author: René Pickhardt 2020-07-17 07:19:03
Published on: 2020-07-17T07:19:03+00:00
In this conversation, Ankit Gangwal raises a scenario where A wants to send funds to E but they don't have a direct payment channel. They use the Lightning Network and pass on the hash of a secret r from E to A through intermediaries B, C and D. However, E breaches the protocol by disclosing the secret to partner-in-crime C and does not respond to D. C settles the HTLC with B and gives the secret to A, who settles the HTLC with B. When A claims that E did not receive the money, the Lightning Network sees possession of the preimage as proof of payment. If E gave the preimage to someone else instead of claiming the money from D, it would be considered E's problem and A could take legal action. The possession of the preimage matching the signed payment hash from E is stronger evidence of A having paid than E claiming to not have received anything. Guessing the preimage is practically impossible, making it unlikely for E to claim that they used a random hash for which they didn't know the preimage.
Updated on: 2023-06-03T01:47:53.405432+00:00