>
> > If I were LOW-REP, I'd still charge an unknown node a hold fee. I
> > would only waive the hold fee for high-reputation nodes. In that case,
> > the attacker is still paying for the attack. I may be forced to take a
> > small loss on the difference, but at least the larger part of the pain
> > is felt by the attacker. The assumption is that this is sufficient
> > enough to deter the attacker from even trying.
>
> The LOW-REP node being out of pocket is the clue here: if one party
> loses funds, even a tiny bit, another party gains some funds. In this
> case the HIGH-REP node collaborating with the ATTACKER can extract some
> funds from the intermediate node, allowing them to dime their way to all
> of LOW-REP's funds. If an attack results in even a tiny loss for an
> intermediary and can be repeated, the intermediary's funds can be
> syphoned by an attacker.
>

The assumption is that HIGH-REP nodes won't do this :) LOW-REP will see all
those failed payments and small losses and start to realize that something
strange is happening. I know the proposal isn't fully trustless, but I
think it can work in practice.


> Another attack that is a spin on ZmnSCPxj's waiting to backpropagate the
> preimage is even worse:
>
>  - Attacker node `A` charging hold fees receives HTLC from victim `V`
>  - `A` does not forward the HTLC, but starts charging hold fees
>  - Just before the timeout for the HTLC would force us to settle onchain
>    `A` just removes the HTLC without forwarding it or he can try to
>    forward at the last moment, potentially blaming someone else for its
>    failure to complete
>
> This results in `A` extracting the maximum hold fee from `V`, without
> the downstream hold fees cutting into their profits. By forwarding as
> late as possible `A` can cause a downstream failure and look innocent,
> and the overall payment has the worst possible outcome: we waited an
> eternity for what turns out to be a failed attempt.
>

The idea is that an attacker node is untrusted and won't be able to charge
hold fees.

- Joost
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev

Reply via email to