pull down to refresh
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @cryptocoin 12 Aug 2022
Debunked fairly well in another post, here on SN:
Mass Exit Attacks on the Lightning Network [PDF]
#56189
http://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.01908
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @LNAnon69420 13 Aug 2022
There are a few assumptions that went into this paper to arrive at a rough ~750BTC number - the 'vulnerability' can be better described as an attack vector to steal sats from unwitting node ops. I'll try to boil it down
- First, a threat actor needs to own at least the 30 largest routers on the network
-
They then flood the network with htlc's and make them unresolvable, triggering FC's
-
They need to keep the btc mempool congested w/o clearing at over 10s/vb for at least 2 weeks
- The threat actor hopes he gains more BTC from vulnerable node ops than he does from triggering justice tx's from good node ops. You could even take into account the value of inbound liquidity and the assumed loss of fee revenue bc they were running a huge router network!
How to mitigate?
Increase default config settings, currently this can mean paying more than you need to for closes. LND is putting effort into bettering fee estimator
Hopefully that helps y'all think on if this is an actionable vulnerability or not!
PS for nerds out there: the authors claim that their k lopsided weighted max cut problem hasn't been studied before... I found a stack exchange post giving a 1/2 approximation algorithm within 5 minutes of googling
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @IgnaciobTato OP 12 Aug 2022
I found this intriguin because its the first time I see a claim on vulnerability of LN, but this answer put calm on my thoughts.
reply