Bitcoin Stack Alternate is a query and reply web site for Bitcoin crypto-currency lovers. It solely takes a minute to enroll.
Anyone can ask a query
Anyone can reply
The most effective solutions are voted up and rise to the highest
Requested
Seen
28 instances
In Antoine Riard’s
unique description of substitute cycle assaults in opposition to HTLCs, a substitute cycle seems like this:
- Bob broadcasts an HTLC-timeout (enter A, enter B for charges, output X)
- Mallory replaces the HTLC-timeout with an HTLC-preimage (enter A,
enter C for charges, output Y) - Mallory replaces the transaction that created enter C, eradicating the
HTLC-preimage from the mempool
Nonetheless, an alternate strategy is:
- (Identical) Bob broadcasts an HTLC-timeout (enter A, enter B for charges,
output X) - (Identical) Mallory replaces the HTLC-timeout with an HTLC-preimage (enter
A, enter C for charges, output Y) - (Totally different) Mallory makes use of enter C to interchange the HTLC-preimage with a
transaction that doesn’t embody enter A, eradicating the preimage from
the mempool
The choice strategy has three clear benefits:
- It is less complicated. The unique strategy works by changing enter C’s guardian, eradicating from the mempool the information mandatory to substantiate the HTLC-preimage; the choice strategy merely replaces the HTLC-preimage, eradicating it from the mempool immediately.
- It requires much less setup. The unique strategy requires enter C’s guardian to be an unconfirmed transaction already within the mempool of focused nodes; the choice strategy can use any of these outputs or any confirmed output.
- It is extra strong. If the unique strategy’s unconfirmed output will get confirmed, the attacker must create one other unconfirmed output.
Are there extra benefits to the choice strategy? Are there benefits to the unique strategy?
requested 4 hours in the past
2