Author: ZmnSCPxj 2018-11-12 09:58:08
Published on: 2018-11-12T09:58:08+00:00
The discussion revolves around the mechanism of advertising and receiving offers for dual funding. As a liquidity provider, one can reject any offer above or below their stated fee rate. However, there are scenarios where badly skewed channels are required for large vendors like Amazon who perpetually need inbound capacity. Liquidity providers can benefit from open channels with Amazon as they are highly utilized and generate more fee traffic. A potential attack is discussed where a node operator advertises 1 BTC but does not deliver the liquidity after receiving payment. A proposed solution is to modify channel commitment transactions for channels opened via liquidity requests so that they have an nSequence that prevents them from being claimed for a month. A proposed mechanism is also discussed where only the liquidity provider is encumbered by the agreed-upon channel lifetime. The laolu attack is explained which can be prevented by imposing a minimum channel lifetime.
Updated on: 2023-05-25T15:23:37.997633+00:00