Fee negotiations in LightningThe cost of restarting a lightning channelCan Lightning Network be used for individual small transactions?lightning network dispute costsHow are fees determined in the Lightning Network?Lightning Network understandingOpening Lightning network channel: who is paying?BTC Lightning NetworkLightning - a lost transactionLightning: Is it possible to send lightning BTC outside of a lightning state channel?Why can’t lightning tx’s be signed with sighash single to allow for fee updates?

If a character has cast the Fly spell on themselves, can they "hand off" to the Levitate spell without interruption?

How do I write real-world stories separate from my country of origin?

Palindromic Pan digital Special Square wants you to reveal its Root

Adobe Illustrator: How can I change the profile of a dashed stroke?

What is the required burn to keep a satellite at a Lagrangian point?

How many wires should be in a new thermostat cable?

Is there a word for pant sleeves?

Negative impact of having the launch pad away from the Equator

Change to uppercase all tables data

Why is this integration method not valid?

Are clauses with "который" restrictive or non-restrictive by default?

Surface of the 3x3x3 cube as a graph

Way of refund if scammed?

Why is unzipped file smaller than zipped file

One word for 'the thing that attracts me'?

Team member is vehemently against code formatting

Ribbon Cable Cross Talk - Is there a fix after the fact?

Keeping the dodos out of the field

Is ideal gas incompressible?

Real Analysis: Proof of the equivalent definitions of the derivative.

Why A=2 and B=1 in the call signs for Spirit and Opportunity?

Is it OK to look at the list of played moves during the game to determine the status of the 50 move rule?

What spell do I need to be my own rock band?

Is it normal to "extract a paper" from a master thesis?



Fee negotiations in Lightning


The cost of restarting a lightning channelCan Lightning Network be used for individual small transactions?lightning network dispute costsHow are fees determined in the Lightning Network?Lightning Network understandingOpening Lightning network channel: who is paying?BTC Lightning NetworkLightning - a lost transactionLightning: Is it possible to send lightning BTC outside of a lightning state channel?Why can’t lightning tx’s be signed with sighash single to allow for fee updates?













2















How are fees negotiated in multi-hop payments in Lightning?



Imagine a four-hop payment: Alice -- Bob -- Charlie -- Dave. Bob and Charlie advertise fees of 100 sat each, Alice thinks it's reasonable and starts routing the payment through this route. Does Bob know which part of the expected payment is intended to be a fee? What is Bob forwards the payment to Charlie taking 120, 150, or 200 sat instead of 100 -- what does Charlie do?



Is there anything that prevents intermediary nodes from lying about their fees?










share|improve this question


























    2















    How are fees negotiated in multi-hop payments in Lightning?



    Imagine a four-hop payment: Alice -- Bob -- Charlie -- Dave. Bob and Charlie advertise fees of 100 sat each, Alice thinks it's reasonable and starts routing the payment through this route. Does Bob know which part of the expected payment is intended to be a fee? What is Bob forwards the payment to Charlie taking 120, 150, or 200 sat instead of 100 -- what does Charlie do?



    Is there anything that prevents intermediary nodes from lying about their fees?










    share|improve this question
























      2












      2








      2


      1






      How are fees negotiated in multi-hop payments in Lightning?



      Imagine a four-hop payment: Alice -- Bob -- Charlie -- Dave. Bob and Charlie advertise fees of 100 sat each, Alice thinks it's reasonable and starts routing the payment through this route. Does Bob know which part of the expected payment is intended to be a fee? What is Bob forwards the payment to Charlie taking 120, 150, or 200 sat instead of 100 -- what does Charlie do?



      Is there anything that prevents intermediary nodes from lying about their fees?










      share|improve this question














      How are fees negotiated in multi-hop payments in Lightning?



      Imagine a four-hop payment: Alice -- Bob -- Charlie -- Dave. Bob and Charlie advertise fees of 100 sat each, Alice thinks it's reasonable and starts routing the payment through this route. Does Bob know which part of the expected payment is intended to be a fee? What is Bob forwards the payment to Charlie taking 120, 150, or 200 sat instead of 100 -- what does Charlie do?



      Is there anything that prevents intermediary nodes from lying about their fees?







      transaction-fees lightning-network






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked May 8 at 13:53









      Sergei TikhomirovSergei Tikhomirov

      738315




      738315




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          Nodes advertise the fees for forwarding over a channel as part of a channel_update message. The update should be sent as soon as a channel_announcement is sent. Each party can decide its own fees for the channel.



          For private channels, nodes advertise the fees inside the r tagged field of the BOLT#11 invoice.



          When forwarding a payment, your node must calculate the required fee for each hop and add it to the payment requested in the invoice. When each intermediate hop receives an update_add_htlc message, they will unwrap one level of the onion packet, which contains an amt_to_forward. This is subtracted from the amount_msat in the update_add_htlc message, and the difference is the fee paid for this hop.



          If the hop determines that the fee is insufficient, they respond to the sender with fee_insufficient error as part of an update_fail_htlc message. This message also includes the most recent channel_update for this channel so that the payer can re-attempt the payment with new fees.



          There is always the possibility of a race condition where fees may have changed between the most recently received channel_update and the payment attempt. This is minimized by including the channel_update as part of the failure as above.



          If the payment at the last hop is too small, they will respond with a failure containing the incorrect_or_unknown_payment_details failure code.






          share|improve this answer

























          • We need to coordinate in future (: I was typing on my mobile where putting all these links and syntax highlighting is annoying. Anyway plus 1 for nice onside explainations instead of referring to a tutorial video like I did.

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 14:42


















          3














          The situation you describe cannot happen / would lead to a routing failure. I have created an 11 minute video explaining how htlcs are used in onion routing. Parts of the video (rather at the end) explain how fees are encoded within the sent onion. I think watching that video is the quickest way to understand the fee model of the lightning network.



          A tl;dw (too long didn't watch) answer looks like that:



          If a node decides to maliciously collect a larger fee and forward the onion. The next hop will not be able to collect the fee as it advertised and will fail the routing process. In your setting this means charlie decrypts his onion and sees which amount to forward and sees from the incoming htlc that it would only receive a fee of 80 / 50 or 0 Satoshi instead of the advertised 100. As said charlie would fail the onion but not be able to blame Bob. Actually obs behavior would confuse Alice as she chose the correct fees. Alice could assume Bob was a bad routing node and elect a different part. However this mechanism is as far as I know not implemented yet.






          share|improve this answer























          • By "this mechanism" in the last sentence do you mean Alice marking Bob as a bad node? (BTW, the tiny envelopes you use in the video are amazing, where did you even get those things :)

            – Sergei Tikhomirov
            May 8 at 14:50







          • 1





            What if we extended this argument by one more party? Alice sending BTC to Eric via bob, charlie and dave. Assume charlie is the bad apple in the lot and consumes all the remaining fee in the hop. How would Alice know whether it is Bob or Charlie?

            – Ugam Kamat
            May 8 at 14:50






          • 1





            Since the fees are part of the onion noone in the chain knows what the payment amount is and how much fees are in the onion in total... On the other hand I hope to remember correctly that the node that can't forward the onion because the prev took too much fees and back an failure message of type 12 fee _insufficient cf: github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/…

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 14:59






          • 1





            What I see here is a violation of the "don't explain to the attacker why the error happened" security principle, screaming for probing attacks similar to this one... ;)

            – Sergei Tikhomirov
            May 8 at 15:11






          • 1





            Yeah the probing attack is well known. I don't see a direct relation. The proving attack usually would use a circular onion and you yourself would fail the htlc / onion

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 17:00











          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
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f87586%2ffee-negotiations-in-lightning%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2














          Nodes advertise the fees for forwarding over a channel as part of a channel_update message. The update should be sent as soon as a channel_announcement is sent. Each party can decide its own fees for the channel.



          For private channels, nodes advertise the fees inside the r tagged field of the BOLT#11 invoice.



          When forwarding a payment, your node must calculate the required fee for each hop and add it to the payment requested in the invoice. When each intermediate hop receives an update_add_htlc message, they will unwrap one level of the onion packet, which contains an amt_to_forward. This is subtracted from the amount_msat in the update_add_htlc message, and the difference is the fee paid for this hop.



          If the hop determines that the fee is insufficient, they respond to the sender with fee_insufficient error as part of an update_fail_htlc message. This message also includes the most recent channel_update for this channel so that the payer can re-attempt the payment with new fees.



          There is always the possibility of a race condition where fees may have changed between the most recently received channel_update and the payment attempt. This is minimized by including the channel_update as part of the failure as above.



          If the payment at the last hop is too small, they will respond with a failure containing the incorrect_or_unknown_payment_details failure code.






          share|improve this answer

























          • We need to coordinate in future (: I was typing on my mobile where putting all these links and syntax highlighting is annoying. Anyway plus 1 for nice onside explainations instead of referring to a tutorial video like I did.

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 14:42















          2














          Nodes advertise the fees for forwarding over a channel as part of a channel_update message. The update should be sent as soon as a channel_announcement is sent. Each party can decide its own fees for the channel.



          For private channels, nodes advertise the fees inside the r tagged field of the BOLT#11 invoice.



          When forwarding a payment, your node must calculate the required fee for each hop and add it to the payment requested in the invoice. When each intermediate hop receives an update_add_htlc message, they will unwrap one level of the onion packet, which contains an amt_to_forward. This is subtracted from the amount_msat in the update_add_htlc message, and the difference is the fee paid for this hop.



          If the hop determines that the fee is insufficient, they respond to the sender with fee_insufficient error as part of an update_fail_htlc message. This message also includes the most recent channel_update for this channel so that the payer can re-attempt the payment with new fees.



          There is always the possibility of a race condition where fees may have changed between the most recently received channel_update and the payment attempt. This is minimized by including the channel_update as part of the failure as above.



          If the payment at the last hop is too small, they will respond with a failure containing the incorrect_or_unknown_payment_details failure code.






          share|improve this answer

























          • We need to coordinate in future (: I was typing on my mobile where putting all these links and syntax highlighting is annoying. Anyway plus 1 for nice onside explainations instead of referring to a tutorial video like I did.

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 14:42













          2












          2








          2







          Nodes advertise the fees for forwarding over a channel as part of a channel_update message. The update should be sent as soon as a channel_announcement is sent. Each party can decide its own fees for the channel.



          For private channels, nodes advertise the fees inside the r tagged field of the BOLT#11 invoice.



          When forwarding a payment, your node must calculate the required fee for each hop and add it to the payment requested in the invoice. When each intermediate hop receives an update_add_htlc message, they will unwrap one level of the onion packet, which contains an amt_to_forward. This is subtracted from the amount_msat in the update_add_htlc message, and the difference is the fee paid for this hop.



          If the hop determines that the fee is insufficient, they respond to the sender with fee_insufficient error as part of an update_fail_htlc message. This message also includes the most recent channel_update for this channel so that the payer can re-attempt the payment with new fees.



          There is always the possibility of a race condition where fees may have changed between the most recently received channel_update and the payment attempt. This is minimized by including the channel_update as part of the failure as above.



          If the payment at the last hop is too small, they will respond with a failure containing the incorrect_or_unknown_payment_details failure code.






          share|improve this answer















          Nodes advertise the fees for forwarding over a channel as part of a channel_update message. The update should be sent as soon as a channel_announcement is sent. Each party can decide its own fees for the channel.



          For private channels, nodes advertise the fees inside the r tagged field of the BOLT#11 invoice.



          When forwarding a payment, your node must calculate the required fee for each hop and add it to the payment requested in the invoice. When each intermediate hop receives an update_add_htlc message, they will unwrap one level of the onion packet, which contains an amt_to_forward. This is subtracted from the amount_msat in the update_add_htlc message, and the difference is the fee paid for this hop.



          If the hop determines that the fee is insufficient, they respond to the sender with fee_insufficient error as part of an update_fail_htlc message. This message also includes the most recent channel_update for this channel so that the payer can re-attempt the payment with new fees.



          There is always the possibility of a race condition where fees may have changed between the most recently received channel_update and the payment attempt. This is minimized by including the channel_update as part of the failure as above.



          If the payment at the last hop is too small, they will respond with a failure containing the incorrect_or_unknown_payment_details failure code.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited May 8 at 14:42

























          answered May 8 at 14:37









          Mark HMark H

          1,35919




          1,35919












          • We need to coordinate in future (: I was typing on my mobile where putting all these links and syntax highlighting is annoying. Anyway plus 1 for nice onside explainations instead of referring to a tutorial video like I did.

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 14:42

















          • We need to coordinate in future (: I was typing on my mobile where putting all these links and syntax highlighting is annoying. Anyway plus 1 for nice onside explainations instead of referring to a tutorial video like I did.

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 14:42
















          We need to coordinate in future (: I was typing on my mobile where putting all these links and syntax highlighting is annoying. Anyway plus 1 for nice onside explainations instead of referring to a tutorial video like I did.

          – Rene Pickhardt
          May 8 at 14:42





          We need to coordinate in future (: I was typing on my mobile where putting all these links and syntax highlighting is annoying. Anyway plus 1 for nice onside explainations instead of referring to a tutorial video like I did.

          – Rene Pickhardt
          May 8 at 14:42











          3














          The situation you describe cannot happen / would lead to a routing failure. I have created an 11 minute video explaining how htlcs are used in onion routing. Parts of the video (rather at the end) explain how fees are encoded within the sent onion. I think watching that video is the quickest way to understand the fee model of the lightning network.



          A tl;dw (too long didn't watch) answer looks like that:



          If a node decides to maliciously collect a larger fee and forward the onion. The next hop will not be able to collect the fee as it advertised and will fail the routing process. In your setting this means charlie decrypts his onion and sees which amount to forward and sees from the incoming htlc that it would only receive a fee of 80 / 50 or 0 Satoshi instead of the advertised 100. As said charlie would fail the onion but not be able to blame Bob. Actually obs behavior would confuse Alice as she chose the correct fees. Alice could assume Bob was a bad routing node and elect a different part. However this mechanism is as far as I know not implemented yet.






          share|improve this answer























          • By "this mechanism" in the last sentence do you mean Alice marking Bob as a bad node? (BTW, the tiny envelopes you use in the video are amazing, where did you even get those things :)

            – Sergei Tikhomirov
            May 8 at 14:50







          • 1





            What if we extended this argument by one more party? Alice sending BTC to Eric via bob, charlie and dave. Assume charlie is the bad apple in the lot and consumes all the remaining fee in the hop. How would Alice know whether it is Bob or Charlie?

            – Ugam Kamat
            May 8 at 14:50






          • 1





            Since the fees are part of the onion noone in the chain knows what the payment amount is and how much fees are in the onion in total... On the other hand I hope to remember correctly that the node that can't forward the onion because the prev took too much fees and back an failure message of type 12 fee _insufficient cf: github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/…

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 14:59






          • 1





            What I see here is a violation of the "don't explain to the attacker why the error happened" security principle, screaming for probing attacks similar to this one... ;)

            – Sergei Tikhomirov
            May 8 at 15:11






          • 1





            Yeah the probing attack is well known. I don't see a direct relation. The proving attack usually would use a circular onion and you yourself would fail the htlc / onion

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 17:00















          3














          The situation you describe cannot happen / would lead to a routing failure. I have created an 11 minute video explaining how htlcs are used in onion routing. Parts of the video (rather at the end) explain how fees are encoded within the sent onion. I think watching that video is the quickest way to understand the fee model of the lightning network.



          A tl;dw (too long didn't watch) answer looks like that:



          If a node decides to maliciously collect a larger fee and forward the onion. The next hop will not be able to collect the fee as it advertised and will fail the routing process. In your setting this means charlie decrypts his onion and sees which amount to forward and sees from the incoming htlc that it would only receive a fee of 80 / 50 or 0 Satoshi instead of the advertised 100. As said charlie would fail the onion but not be able to blame Bob. Actually obs behavior would confuse Alice as she chose the correct fees. Alice could assume Bob was a bad routing node and elect a different part. However this mechanism is as far as I know not implemented yet.






          share|improve this answer























          • By "this mechanism" in the last sentence do you mean Alice marking Bob as a bad node? (BTW, the tiny envelopes you use in the video are amazing, where did you even get those things :)

            – Sergei Tikhomirov
            May 8 at 14:50







          • 1





            What if we extended this argument by one more party? Alice sending BTC to Eric via bob, charlie and dave. Assume charlie is the bad apple in the lot and consumes all the remaining fee in the hop. How would Alice know whether it is Bob or Charlie?

            – Ugam Kamat
            May 8 at 14:50






          • 1





            Since the fees are part of the onion noone in the chain knows what the payment amount is and how much fees are in the onion in total... On the other hand I hope to remember correctly that the node that can't forward the onion because the prev took too much fees and back an failure message of type 12 fee _insufficient cf: github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/…

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 14:59






          • 1





            What I see here is a violation of the "don't explain to the attacker why the error happened" security principle, screaming for probing attacks similar to this one... ;)

            – Sergei Tikhomirov
            May 8 at 15:11






          • 1





            Yeah the probing attack is well known. I don't see a direct relation. The proving attack usually would use a circular onion and you yourself would fail the htlc / onion

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 17:00













          3












          3








          3







          The situation you describe cannot happen / would lead to a routing failure. I have created an 11 minute video explaining how htlcs are used in onion routing. Parts of the video (rather at the end) explain how fees are encoded within the sent onion. I think watching that video is the quickest way to understand the fee model of the lightning network.



          A tl;dw (too long didn't watch) answer looks like that:



          If a node decides to maliciously collect a larger fee and forward the onion. The next hop will not be able to collect the fee as it advertised and will fail the routing process. In your setting this means charlie decrypts his onion and sees which amount to forward and sees from the incoming htlc that it would only receive a fee of 80 / 50 or 0 Satoshi instead of the advertised 100. As said charlie would fail the onion but not be able to blame Bob. Actually obs behavior would confuse Alice as she chose the correct fees. Alice could assume Bob was a bad routing node and elect a different part. However this mechanism is as far as I know not implemented yet.






          share|improve this answer













          The situation you describe cannot happen / would lead to a routing failure. I have created an 11 minute video explaining how htlcs are used in onion routing. Parts of the video (rather at the end) explain how fees are encoded within the sent onion. I think watching that video is the quickest way to understand the fee model of the lightning network.



          A tl;dw (too long didn't watch) answer looks like that:



          If a node decides to maliciously collect a larger fee and forward the onion. The next hop will not be able to collect the fee as it advertised and will fail the routing process. In your setting this means charlie decrypts his onion and sees which amount to forward and sees from the incoming htlc that it would only receive a fee of 80 / 50 or 0 Satoshi instead of the advertised 100. As said charlie would fail the onion but not be able to blame Bob. Actually obs behavior would confuse Alice as she chose the correct fees. Alice could assume Bob was a bad routing node and elect a different part. However this mechanism is as far as I know not implemented yet.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered May 8 at 14:34









          Rene PickhardtRene Pickhardt

          3,693218




          3,693218












          • By "this mechanism" in the last sentence do you mean Alice marking Bob as a bad node? (BTW, the tiny envelopes you use in the video are amazing, where did you even get those things :)

            – Sergei Tikhomirov
            May 8 at 14:50







          • 1





            What if we extended this argument by one more party? Alice sending BTC to Eric via bob, charlie and dave. Assume charlie is the bad apple in the lot and consumes all the remaining fee in the hop. How would Alice know whether it is Bob or Charlie?

            – Ugam Kamat
            May 8 at 14:50






          • 1





            Since the fees are part of the onion noone in the chain knows what the payment amount is and how much fees are in the onion in total... On the other hand I hope to remember correctly that the node that can't forward the onion because the prev took too much fees and back an failure message of type 12 fee _insufficient cf: github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/…

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 14:59






          • 1





            What I see here is a violation of the "don't explain to the attacker why the error happened" security principle, screaming for probing attacks similar to this one... ;)

            – Sergei Tikhomirov
            May 8 at 15:11






          • 1





            Yeah the probing attack is well known. I don't see a direct relation. The proving attack usually would use a circular onion and you yourself would fail the htlc / onion

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 17:00

















          • By "this mechanism" in the last sentence do you mean Alice marking Bob as a bad node? (BTW, the tiny envelopes you use in the video are amazing, where did you even get those things :)

            – Sergei Tikhomirov
            May 8 at 14:50







          • 1





            What if we extended this argument by one more party? Alice sending BTC to Eric via bob, charlie and dave. Assume charlie is the bad apple in the lot and consumes all the remaining fee in the hop. How would Alice know whether it is Bob or Charlie?

            – Ugam Kamat
            May 8 at 14:50






          • 1





            Since the fees are part of the onion noone in the chain knows what the payment amount is and how much fees are in the onion in total... On the other hand I hope to remember correctly that the node that can't forward the onion because the prev took too much fees and back an failure message of type 12 fee _insufficient cf: github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/…

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 14:59






          • 1





            What I see here is a violation of the "don't explain to the attacker why the error happened" security principle, screaming for probing attacks similar to this one... ;)

            – Sergei Tikhomirov
            May 8 at 15:11






          • 1





            Yeah the probing attack is well known. I don't see a direct relation. The proving attack usually would use a circular onion and you yourself would fail the htlc / onion

            – Rene Pickhardt
            May 8 at 17:00
















          By "this mechanism" in the last sentence do you mean Alice marking Bob as a bad node? (BTW, the tiny envelopes you use in the video are amazing, where did you even get those things :)

          – Sergei Tikhomirov
          May 8 at 14:50






          By "this mechanism" in the last sentence do you mean Alice marking Bob as a bad node? (BTW, the tiny envelopes you use in the video are amazing, where did you even get those things :)

          – Sergei Tikhomirov
          May 8 at 14:50





          1




          1





          What if we extended this argument by one more party? Alice sending BTC to Eric via bob, charlie and dave. Assume charlie is the bad apple in the lot and consumes all the remaining fee in the hop. How would Alice know whether it is Bob or Charlie?

          – Ugam Kamat
          May 8 at 14:50





          What if we extended this argument by one more party? Alice sending BTC to Eric via bob, charlie and dave. Assume charlie is the bad apple in the lot and consumes all the remaining fee in the hop. How would Alice know whether it is Bob or Charlie?

          – Ugam Kamat
          May 8 at 14:50




          1




          1





          Since the fees are part of the onion noone in the chain knows what the payment amount is and how much fees are in the onion in total... On the other hand I hope to remember correctly that the node that can't forward the onion because the prev took too much fees and back an failure message of type 12 fee _insufficient cf: github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/…

          – Rene Pickhardt
          May 8 at 14:59





          Since the fees are part of the onion noone in the chain knows what the payment amount is and how much fees are in the onion in total... On the other hand I hope to remember correctly that the node that can't forward the onion because the prev took too much fees and back an failure message of type 12 fee _insufficient cf: github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/…

          – Rene Pickhardt
          May 8 at 14:59




          1




          1





          What I see here is a violation of the "don't explain to the attacker why the error happened" security principle, screaming for probing attacks similar to this one... ;)

          – Sergei Tikhomirov
          May 8 at 15:11





          What I see here is a violation of the "don't explain to the attacker why the error happened" security principle, screaming for probing attacks similar to this one... ;)

          – Sergei Tikhomirov
          May 8 at 15:11




          1




          1





          Yeah the probing attack is well known. I don't see a direct relation. The proving attack usually would use a circular onion and you yourself would fail the htlc / onion

          – Rene Pickhardt
          May 8 at 17:00





          Yeah the probing attack is well known. I don't see a direct relation. The proving attack usually would use a circular onion and you yourself would fail the htlc / onion

          – Rene Pickhardt
          May 8 at 17:00

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f87586%2ffee-negotiations-in-lightning%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

          Bruxelas-Capital Índice Historia | Composición | Situación lingüística | Clima | Cidades irmandadas | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióneO uso das linguas en Bruxelas e a situación do neerlandés"Rexión de Bruxelas Capital"o orixinalSitio da rexiónPáxina de Bruselas no sitio da Oficina de Promoción Turística de Valonia e BruxelasMapa Interactivo da Rexión de Bruxelas-CapitaleeWorldCat332144929079854441105155190212ID28008674080552-90000 0001 0666 3698n94104302ID540940339365017018237

          What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company