From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F6CC0733 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:45:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C26920116 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:45:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id migGdMW7pOVW for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:45:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg1-f181.google.com (mail-pg1-f181.google.com [209.85.215.181]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EE721FCB5 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:45:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f181.google.com with SMTP id d4so14936385pgk.4 for ; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 03:45:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dwf26+ScsuN/8IVMgKlgoZonXQqC2TMFq/9za7tT88c=; b=mkah2nXNzpmEjABCKIcx4ON5safyyTphUpV+SSJz1B7swBmzaePSVDl1QiFz+lvJIt 7kqj3V1l+vtpE3+rxh8WYqQVwKwaBJim/GTZu8q/LGj5aWjHZGDG6fJ7h3QtRHC09dNz 4wcdYB+kEeOO8xoYTmo/CU0nvSG9tF7+hqYgDZv/TxPr/39uapBas4tCJntWA/MpEocF kfsur9A3VtLQggvcS6vEYcGuRRhpdDwGwXNtiGhntQEytpEVd7zsxyEJU474Fd1rsMBd YFe0RELcVT6v/Tt7LSG3Tm78UMePSDJGDMzQRFaLehCqXy/5W8T/TGeizYrMkF4Cnqil PMow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dwf26+ScsuN/8IVMgKlgoZonXQqC2TMFq/9za7tT88c=; b=TzFZYOZkn0rDEQAkZtnn4qJ7Dm9+X2ACWf8nqxhPaoWT/BhJtf/QQbTMushq7xVh+K Y+m83ZssrCaSOKXesHZIo2vF4cU/NIIGfUGliAcjDFKG4SYjXNnEa3o90ts4U1Am6sya Rr+oe7D0VEaGYuluhff0V++L5+GrbKnbehgXLYJ0RXgorHZE9Y9WUfwYhCmccTAB6uns iyymkhpTjCnjbHeGBKdYCKz6sANoJaHqnq7HPCzIIDwND1tCV7i96sl1yn7r0pqYLotY eyJJ4M1oOPKz4moC8fw0qIygSgWqzsef5lP/JkNBn1temSlxb77kz9Zv6/I/M4S9hQoh vEKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533VvpfVQgM+ypnnlFIPtRT8fuZV1XmSuGK6D2v6jbCZIsTVSoES pi89RFjp1NxBfVlTJjerTmFXkVr10D7ATTsbITA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwc0thw0CgXKBqZq0W/PBT7WZE+WKYC030qoY4AlSe304e143A0Ii2ZbBdrwr97QWuqXLPNZJPmYG3DlzWNTFo= X-Received: by 2002:a65:52c2:: with SMTP id z2mr29345878pgp.419.1593773110231; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 03:45:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200628121517.f3l2mjcy7x4566v3@ganymede> <-R0O_3IqpmbxNSONd1A2peCnpEIRs73ZELJgsBf06ygq4BGMo3Hg9h4OlXiGuIUyaITWixSY7LlgVyJ2MkAFQb7Y6I1gC8AXiAeS7eMlSso=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: <-R0O_3IqpmbxNSONd1A2peCnpEIRs73ZELJgsBf06ygq4BGMo3Hg9h4OlXiGuIUyaITWixSY7LlgVyJ2MkAFQb7Y6I1gC8AXiAeS7eMlSso=@protonmail.com> From: Tejaswi Nadahalli Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 12:44:59 +0200 Message-ID: To: ZmnSCPxj Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001689e405a9873817" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 10:46:27 +0000 Cc: Matan Yehieli , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Itay Tsabary Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] MAD-HTLC X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 10:45:11 -0000 --0000000000001689e405a9873817 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:17 PM ZmnSCPxj wrote: > > > In fact, one rule of thumb might be that wherever watchtowers are > required, a timelocked bribe might be possible. > > I think a better heuristic is that, if the logic of the construction > assumes "transaction with earlier locktime supersedes transaction with > later locktime", then it is timelocked-bribery-vulnerable. > That's true by definition. Timelocked bribes are, well, going to be possible when there are timelocks. I was going more for an "indirect clue" that wherever a watchtower is proposed, a timelocked bribe is possible. This is entirely a pedantic point :-) --0000000000001689e405a9873817 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:17 PM ZmnSCPxj = <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com&= gt; wrote:

> In fact, one rule of thumb might be that wherever watchtowers are requ= ired, a timelocked bribe might be possible.=C2=A0

I think a better heuristic is that, if the logic of the construction assume= s "transaction with earlier locktime supersedes transaction with later= locktime", then it is timelocked-bribery-vulnerable.
=

That's true by definition. Timelocked bribes are, w= ell, going to be possible when there are timelocks. I was going more for an= "indirect clue" that wherever a watchtower is proposed, a timelo= cked bribe is possible. This is entirely a pedantic point :-)
--0000000000001689e405a9873817--