On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:22 PM, s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org> wrote:

In this scenario, if channel is closed, Alice is the only one who can
take the coins back after a relative locktime of 150 blocks. Bob is not
able to do this.

Yes, Alice is assumed to be the one who funded the channel. It is a single direction channel (Alice to Bob).

How is Bob protected in this scenario?

Assuming the deposit is 1 BTC.

When the channel is created, Alice can broadcast the refund transaction immediately and the get her money back 150 blocks later.

The full scriptPubKey for the refund transaction would be

OP_IF

<150> OP_RELATIVE_CHECKLOCKTIME_VERIFY OP_DROP <Alice's public key 2> OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY

OP_ELSE

OP_2 <Alice's public key 3> <Bob's public key 2> OP_2 OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY

OP_ENDIF

This means that Alice can spend the output after 150 blocks but with both signatures Bob and Alice can spend the output without the delay.

She can send money to Bob by spending the non-locked output of the refund transaction (0.01BTC for Bob and 0.99BTC for Alice).

Bob has a transaction that pays him 0.01BTC and pays Alice 0.99BTC from the refund transaction and is signed by Alice, but still requires his signature. Only Bob can make the transaction valid.

It can be spent as soon as the refund transaction is broadcast.

He has the refund transaction, so he can start the process whenever he wishes.

Assume the channel runs for a while, and Alice sends 0.3BTC total.

Bob has a transaction which pays him 0.3BTC and Alice 0.7BTC. He also has some that pay him less than 0.3, but there is no point in him using those ones.

Alice decides she wants to close the channel, so asks bob to sign his final transaction and broadcast it and the refund transaction.

If Bob refuses to do that, then Alice can just broadcast the refund transaction.

If Bob still refuses to broadcast his final transaction, then Alice gets 1BTC and he gets nothing, after 150 blocks.

This means he will send his final transaction before the 150 blocks have passed. This gets him 0.3 and Alice 0.7.

Bob can close the channel immediately and Alice can force it to be closed within 150 blocks (~1 day).

If Alice sings a transaction
which spends the output of the refund transaction and gives it to Bob,
Bob can just add its signature and claim his slice of the output,
without necessarily shipping the goods or delivering the services to Alice.

Protection against that type of fraud isn't covered by channels. They are just to make sure money is handed over.

Can you be more explicit here? It doesn't make sense for me.

Does the explanation above help?

With some risks.

As long as Bob is online and sees the refund transaction being broadcast by Alice, then there is no risk to him.

Alice can close the transaction whenever she wants, so there is no holdup risk for her.

How do you apply a locktime path to a tx in the current network consensus?

I mean with OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.

She could say that TXA pays to her in 6 months.

If TXA ends up mutated after being broadcast, then she would have to wait the 6 months. It's better than nothing and maybe Bob would sign the mutated transaction.