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?
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
transaction-fees lightning-network
asked May 8 at 13:53
Sergei TikhomirovSergei Tikhomirov
738315
738315
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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 12fee _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
|
show 3 more comments
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%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
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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 12fee _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
|
show 3 more comments
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.
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 12fee _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
|
show 3 more comments
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.
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.
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 12fee _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
|
show 3 more comments
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 12fee _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
|
show 3 more comments
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.
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%2f87586%2ffee-negotiations-in-lightning%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