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 7A579C016F for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 11:14:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45A6C20397 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 11:14:00 +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 wbzNx3yVXZAS for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 11:13:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pl1-f176.google.com (mail-pl1-f176.google.com [209.85.214.176]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 632BE20335 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 11:13:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f176.google.com with SMTP id x9so1545288plr.2 for ; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 04:13:59 -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=YTwH0w7zV88QOahiInKiIdVPmTyrOmB14HYDwZHjseg=; b=VQmL6gFWuq1LsHMticZAfdR9Ax8XqPu6JhIZBqDDC23c0LmggiW66tlWj4TksEXH5D jqcHZaGlH2HYb3GGlVkap1fmdUTWqLE/Tw5XGYnnYGso8kQCqWak5VM0W2FU2/nVMyvW LyjNxoBi2snK0g53EFgaZQ9j5xr5oX3nH7eTfKugnrd/vulY8qbzPE1nMpsTC6bljfNf 5WN+oo2RLINmbynrazGbhoYEAzKZLv+akWbjopJ0KprHZMW8+fRfCxFkYMId3q5q6ceH 2mG0TVHiFFzyt1dthXyNcF/dShDCTLm/LHSKeBZfefwmVL7IRlR2uF7D+9vcYG8HgTde h1Ng== 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=YTwH0w7zV88QOahiInKiIdVPmTyrOmB14HYDwZHjseg=; b=EZJXq1PXvfBmwqDTDnSL5X8jNsN/77b4jaqFHPFeEiqEXoTbkeUF1U9sY1KHdpvcuf pHxqLNnxCy5ITCuzz+0uW/jfcEzGANtht/uhrM9PcgrrI2lyI6It1NQwBSwccSQqwmjm yEIbR66m6wB6cLiE1mv/uVdQMvTGJwZ1dWPcVflkR2HtlqYxlOElbYlvD8Z4YNx8aogc 749S1Rl1DXQdcVz06+hNzk2Na69iYb7WrOUnzCw/rQDmp8g/6mXayX3Of10Ts/3DnBp9 hvACZJaXyDoY1Mh8dacSRUydTcnYcgK9f3etsLz2eu8Rq/e/7DZSiaN+htq494isJDnF 7eEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532xWHVJkdDssT2AwML7/b7NNFeamw1XgYFq3qIOzrQmEfU8nFnw 51f+fZ/SOa4jJL9M4CX3C5JtGdIVdGiO2w1Mdfg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyxVAL3RWEdjFAB2qrXweDnAhjPCbh5x5cX+QkPq/NksgnRRcB7vfi7LMq/Cz2ZUDSoK9CIlXG9io3TiaKPCe4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:11ca:: with SMTP id gv10mr54257365pjb.19.1594034039009; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 04:13:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200628121517.f3l2mjcy7x4566v3@ganymede> <-R0O_3IqpmbxNSONd1A2peCnpEIRs73ZELJgsBf06ygq4BGMo3Hg9h4OlXiGuIUyaITWixSY7LlgVyJ2MkAFQb7Y6I1gC8AXiAeS7eMlSso=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Tejaswi Nadahalli Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 13:13:47 +0200 Message-ID: To: Itay Tsabary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a7b71f05a9c3f83b" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 11:40:20 +0000 Cc: Matan Yehieli , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 11:14:00 -0000 --000000000000a7b71f05a9c3f83b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 1:49 PM Itay Tsabary wrote: > Note the required token amount for the collateral contract is low and > independent of the required deposit tokens -- only a relatively small > incentive is required to make "acting honestly" Bob's preferred choice. > So, this is basically a negligible overhead, token-wise. As a downside, it > does create slightly larger transactions (another UTXO, etc.). > I read the MAD-HTLC paper and I think it actually doesn't get into the size of the collateral (v^{col}). I might have missed it though. Can you please point me to the section in the paper where the amount is discussed? I assumed that v^{col} has to be at least the size of v^{dep}. Otherwise, Bob can threaten Alice with an HTLC bribery attack, and Alice knows that Bob has very little to lose. Bob *should* have the same amount to lose, to make it work - no? > --000000000000a7b71f05a9c3f83b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 1:49 PM Itay Tsaba= ry <sitay@campus.technion= .ac.il> wrote:
Note the required to= ken amount for the collateral contract is low and independent of the requir= ed deposit tokens -- only a relatively small incentive is required to make = "acting honestly" Bob's preferred choice.
So, this = is basically a negligible overhead, token-wise. As a downside, it does crea= te slightly larger transactions (another UTXO, etc.).

I read the=C2=A0MAD-HTLC paper and I think it ac= tually doesn't get into the size of the collateral (v^{col}). I might h= ave missed it though. Can you please point me to the section in the paper w= here the amount is discussed?

I assumed that v^{co= l} has to be at least the size of v^{dep}. Otherwise, Bob can threaten Alic= e with an HTLC bribery attack, and Alice knows that Bob has very little to = lose. Bob *should* have the same amount to lose, to make it work - no?
--000000000000a7b71f05a9c3f83b--