Hello,
What happens between two peers is no business of others. They can do what
you said if they're cooperating, and many other dirty tricks. And that's
not a problem at all for other nodes.
The only thing they can't do for not is advertise a channel without telling
others where it was funded on
Hello everyone,
My doubt might be silly and apologies for the same. Suppose in a
payment channel network say 2 parties B and C are malicious, controlled by
same adversary. They had initially opened a channel of 1 BTC. But suppose
they get 3 transaction request will flow value of 0.4 BTC each
>
> > So then because unilateral close is the only way to resolve atm, it is
> > correct also in theory that there will never be a commitment tx where the
> > non-initiator pays fees? But the point is clear, channels can get stuck.
>
> Yeah. Generally, it doesn't happen because we insist on a reas
On 14/11/2019 03:59, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Yaacov Akiba Slama writes:
>> So we can integrate between them without intermixing the semantics of
>> the protocols but we need only to define the interaction points between
>> them.
>>
>> In the previous worflow, the seller can for instance add in the
