Lightning Network: asymmetry in the information tracked by each participant?
In following paper, written by Christian Decker et al., there is a paragraph that is not clear to me.
eltoo: A Simple Layer2 Protocol for Bitcoin
"The central idea of Lightning is to invalidate an old state by
punishing the participant publishing it, and claiming all the funds in
the channel. This however introduces an intrinsic asymmetry in the
information tracked by each participant. The replaced states turn into
toxic information as soon as they are replaced, and leaking that
information may result in funds being stolen. The asymmetry also
limits Lightning to two participants."
There are following points that are not clear to me:
(1) Does asymmetry mean the information tracked by each participant (payer and recipient) are NOT the same (or are NOT equal)?
(2) What is the reason of this asymmetry?
(3) What does "turn into toxic information" mean?
(4) The last sentence: "asymmetry also limits Lightning to two participants", Does it mean that we can expect a payment transaction can have more than two participants? since a payment logically has only two participants: a payer and a recipient.
security lightning-network payment terminology
asked 3 hours ago
sas
333213
add a comment |
In following paper, written by Christian Decker et al., there is a paragraph that is not clear to me.
eltoo: A Simple Layer2 Protocol for Bitcoin
"The central idea of Lightning is to invalidate an old state by
punishing the participant publishing it, and claiming all the funds in
the channel. This however introduces an intrinsic asymmetry in the
information tracked by each participant. The replaced states turn into
toxic information as soon as they are replaced, and leaking that
information may result in funds being stolen. The asymmetry also
limits Lightning to two participants."
There are following points that are not clear to me:
(1) Does asymmetry mean the information tracked by each participant (payer and recipient) are NOT the same (or are NOT equal)?
(2) What is the reason of this asymmetry?
(3) What does "turn into toxic information" mean?
(4) The last sentence: "asymmetry also limits Lightning to two participants", Does it mean that we can expect a payment transaction can have more than two participants? since a payment logically has only two participants: a payer and a recipient.
security lightning-network payment terminology
asked 3 hours ago
sas
333213
add a comment |
In following paper, written by Christian Decker et al., there is a paragraph that is not clear to me.
eltoo: A Simple Layer2 Protocol for Bitcoin
"The central idea of Lightning is to invalidate an old state by
punishing the participant publishing it, and claiming all the funds in
the channel. This however introduces an intrinsic asymmetry in the
information tracked by each participant. The replaced states turn into
toxic information as soon as they are replaced, and leaking that
information may result in funds being stolen. The asymmetry also
limits Lightning to two participants."
There are following points that are not clear to me:
(1) Does asymmetry mean the information tracked by each participant (payer and recipient) are NOT the same (or are NOT equal)?
(2) What is the reason of this asymmetry?
(3) What does "turn into toxic information" mean?
(4) The last sentence: "asymmetry also limits Lightning to two participants", Does it mean that we can expect a payment transaction can have more than two participants? since a payment logically has only two participants: a payer and a recipient.
security lightning-network payment terminology
asked 3 hours ago
sas
333213
In following paper, written by Christian Decker et al., there is a paragraph that is not clear to me.
eltoo: A Simple Layer2 Protocol for Bitcoin
"The central idea of Lightning is to invalidate an old state by
punishing the participant publishing it, and claiming all the funds in
the channel. This however introduces an intrinsic asymmetry in the
information tracked by each participant. The replaced states turn into
toxic information as soon as they are replaced, and leaking that
information may result in funds being stolen. The asymmetry also
limits Lightning to two participants."
There are following points that are not clear to me:
(1) Does asymmetry mean the information tracked by each participant (payer and recipient) are NOT the same (or are NOT equal)?
(2) What is the reason of this asymmetry?
(3) What does "turn into toxic information" mean?
(4) The last sentence: "asymmetry also limits Lightning to two participants", Does it mean that we can expect a payment transaction can have more than two participants? since a payment logically has only two participants: a payer and a recipient.
security lightning-network payment terminology
security lightning-network payment terminology
asked 3 hours ago
sas
333213
asked 3 hours ago
sas
333213
edited 1 hour ago
asked 3 hours ago
sas
333213
asked 3 hours ago
sas
333213
asked 3 hours ago
sas
333213
333213
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
When two channel participants open a channel or update it, they exchange commitment transactions. Each of these commitment transactions allows one party to unilaterally close the channel.
The commitment transactions are asymmetric in that they lock the closing party's funds when broadcasted, i.e. Alice's commitment transaction locks Alice's funds, Bob's commitment transaction locks Bob's funds. The counterparty's funds are immediately available for spending. The lock on the closing party's funds gives the counterparty time to impound the closing party's funds if an outdated state was broadcast.
Once a channel is updated, the outdated channel state is "toxic" in the sense that (accidentally) using the outdated commitment transaction to close the channel will cost the user all their funds in the channel.
Updating a channel to make a payment in the punishment-based channel setup requires a procedure with multiple roundtrips in a specific order to ensure that there is no disadvantageous intermittent state for either party. If it were possible to map this on a multiparty setup, it would be extremely complex. In Eltoo broadcasting an outdated state is dealt with by updating to the latest state. Since channel state can thusly be symmetric, it is trivial to have channels with more than two parties.
answered 1 hour ago
Murch♦
34.6k27112324
Thank you. Just when you say we can have channels with more than two parties, do you mean that we can have a bidirectional payment channel between e.g. 4 participants (payer/recipient) like this figure? ( imgur.com/5KVLP6G ) Or do you mean something else? And doeseltoosuch a capability? Thanks
– sas
23 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "308"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f83312%2flightning-network-asymmetry-in-the-information-tracked-by-each-participant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
When two channel participants open a channel or update it, they exchange commitment transactions. Each of these commitment transactions allows one party to unilaterally close the channel.
The commitment transactions are asymmetric in that they lock the closing party's funds when broadcasted, i.e. Alice's commitment transaction locks Alice's funds, Bob's commitment transaction locks Bob's funds. The counterparty's funds are immediately available for spending. The lock on the closing party's funds gives the counterparty time to impound the closing party's funds if an outdated state was broadcast.
Once a channel is updated, the outdated channel state is "toxic" in the sense that (accidentally) using the outdated commitment transaction to close the channel will cost the user all their funds in the channel.
Updating a channel to make a payment in the punishment-based channel setup requires a procedure with multiple roundtrips in a specific order to ensure that there is no disadvantageous intermittent state for either party. If it were possible to map this on a multiparty setup, it would be extremely complex. In Eltoo broadcasting an outdated state is dealt with by updating to the latest state. Since channel state can thusly be symmetric, it is trivial to have channels with more than two parties.
answered 1 hour ago
Murch♦
34.6k27112324
Thank you. Just when you say we can have channels with more than two parties, do you mean that we can have a bidirectional payment channel between e.g. 4 participants (payer/recipient) like this figure? ( imgur.com/5KVLP6G ) Or do you mean something else? And doeseltoosuch a capability? Thanks
– sas
23 mins ago
add a comment |
When two channel participants open a channel or update it, they exchange commitment transactions. Each of these commitment transactions allows one party to unilaterally close the channel.
The commitment transactions are asymmetric in that they lock the closing party's funds when broadcasted, i.e. Alice's commitment transaction locks Alice's funds, Bob's commitment transaction locks Bob's funds. The counterparty's funds are immediately available for spending. The lock on the closing party's funds gives the counterparty time to impound the closing party's funds if an outdated state was broadcast.
Once a channel is updated, the outdated channel state is "toxic" in the sense that (accidentally) using the outdated commitment transaction to close the channel will cost the user all their funds in the channel.
Updating a channel to make a payment in the punishment-based channel setup requires a procedure with multiple roundtrips in a specific order to ensure that there is no disadvantageous intermittent state for either party. If it were possible to map this on a multiparty setup, it would be extremely complex. In Eltoo broadcasting an outdated state is dealt with by updating to the latest state. Since channel state can thusly be symmetric, it is trivial to have channels with more than two parties.
answered 1 hour ago
Murch♦
34.6k27112324
Thank you. Just when you say we can have channels with more than two parties, do you mean that we can have a bidirectional payment channel between e.g. 4 participants (payer/recipient) like this figure? ( imgur.com/5KVLP6G ) Or do you mean something else? And doeseltoosuch a capability? Thanks
– sas
23 mins ago
add a comment |
When two channel participants open a channel or update it, they exchange commitment transactions. Each of these commitment transactions allows one party to unilaterally close the channel.
The commitment transactions are asymmetric in that they lock the closing party's funds when broadcasted, i.e. Alice's commitment transaction locks Alice's funds, Bob's commitment transaction locks Bob's funds. The counterparty's funds are immediately available for spending. The lock on the closing party's funds gives the counterparty time to impound the closing party's funds if an outdated state was broadcast.
Once a channel is updated, the outdated channel state is "toxic" in the sense that (accidentally) using the outdated commitment transaction to close the channel will cost the user all their funds in the channel.
Updating a channel to make a payment in the punishment-based channel setup requires a procedure with multiple roundtrips in a specific order to ensure that there is no disadvantageous intermittent state for either party. If it were possible to map this on a multiparty setup, it would be extremely complex. In Eltoo broadcasting an outdated state is dealt with by updating to the latest state. Since channel state can thusly be symmetric, it is trivial to have channels with more than two parties.
answered 1 hour ago
Murch♦
34.6k27112324
When two channel participants open a channel or update it, they exchange commitment transactions. Each of these commitment transactions allows one party to unilaterally close the channel.
The commitment transactions are asymmetric in that they lock the closing party's funds when broadcasted, i.e. Alice's commitment transaction locks Alice's funds, Bob's commitment transaction locks Bob's funds. The counterparty's funds are immediately available for spending. The lock on the closing party's funds gives the counterparty time to impound the closing party's funds if an outdated state was broadcast.
Once a channel is updated, the outdated channel state is "toxic" in the sense that (accidentally) using the outdated commitment transaction to close the channel will cost the user all their funds in the channel.
Updating a channel to make a payment in the punishment-based channel setup requires a procedure with multiple roundtrips in a specific order to ensure that there is no disadvantageous intermittent state for either party. If it were possible to map this on a multiparty setup, it would be extremely complex. In Eltoo broadcasting an outdated state is dealt with by updating to the latest state. Since channel state can thusly be symmetric, it is trivial to have channels with more than two parties.
answered 1 hour ago
Murch♦
34.6k27112324
answered 1 hour ago
Murch♦
34.6k27112324
answered 1 hour ago
Murch♦
34.6k27112324
answered 1 hour ago
Murch♦
34.6k27112324
34.6k27112324
Thank you. Just when you say we can have channels with more than two parties, do you mean that we can have a bidirectional payment channel between e.g. 4 participants (payer/recipient) like this figure? ( imgur.com/5KVLP6G ) Or do you mean something else? And doeseltoosuch a capability? Thanks
– sas
23 mins ago
add a comment |
Thank you. Just when you say we can have channels with more than two parties, do you mean that we can have a bidirectional payment channel between e.g. 4 participants (payer/recipient) like this figure? ( imgur.com/5KVLP6G ) Or do you mean something else? And doeseltoosuch a capability? Thanks
– sas
23 mins ago
Thank you. Just when you say we can have channels with more than two parties, do you mean that we can have a bidirectional payment channel between e.g. 4 participants (payer/recipient) like this figure? ( imgur.com/5KVLP6G ) Or do you mean something else? And does
eltoo such a capability? Thanks– sas
23 mins ago
Thank you. Just when you say we can have channels with more than two parties, do you mean that we can have a bidirectional payment channel between e.g. 4 participants (payer/recipient) like this figure? ( imgur.com/5KVLP6G ) Or do you mean something else? And does
eltoo such a capability? Thanks– sas
23 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Bitcoin Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f83312%2flightning-network-asymmetry-in-the-information-tracked-by-each-participant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
