pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Filiprogrammer 11 Mar \ on: Payments below dust limit not trustless lightning
I remember reading a proposal for an Offchain Payment Resolution (OPR) protocol where an HTLC does not add any outputs to the channel state transactions:
https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/a-fast-scalable-protocol-for-resolving-lightning-payments/1233
This is ideal for small payments. I can actually see a future where we use a combination of OPR for small payments and the existing Poon-Dryja payment channels for larger payments.
Edit: The author made a 1.1 version going into more detail: https://github.com/JohnLaw2/ln-opr/blob/main/opr_v1.1.pdf
The current implementation adds the funds in flight to the miner fees (so that the receiver is not incentivised to close the channel), but he can still make the other side lose money (the the reason can be nonmonetary). And multiple small payments can pass through a node.
reply
We can lower the value of
max_accepted_htlcs to prevent flooding of a node with HTLCs.
Also the bad actor will have to keep opening new channels to make others lose money. And opening channels incurs an on-chain fee. So the bad actor has no monetary gain out of it, it actually costs them sats too.But I do agree that this is a theoretical problem
reply