1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
|
Return-Path: <dp@simplexum.com>
Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B350C0178
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 14 May 2020 07:05:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C36E873F0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 14 May 2020 07:05:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 9lCJQnpeaWXX
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 14 May 2020 07:05:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.ruggedbytes.com (mail.ruggedbytes.com [88.99.30.248])
by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBEAC86103
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 14 May 2020 07:05:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.ruggedbytes.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.ruggedbytes.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4183A260020D;
Thu, 14 May 2020 07:05:20 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simplexum.com;
s=mail; t=1589439920;
bh=tn5qLSagLPoZWoxS1RlKZzgT4LiDdcnPZyMvM7RPgNk=;
h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References;
b=Ep+Utk8tfM2KAEFMnvxKVyP735mtt+XDwLDqDBIVj0x1Yg0aNcRXlGSMJuOlM6OC0
ewSb6z3mS90cv6Cx+JnCvK2XTU2GNEhRBXNbtKSWiZ0y8ffekcVokfMzxN3H+dU965
y0WflKRR09VOAQIi2Nzl2hMvhqMOY4pQ4IF1ajxk=
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 12:08:05 +0500
From: Dmitry Petukhov <dp@simplexum.com>
To: Ruben Somsen <rsomsen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20200514120805.521fbaa2@simplexum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPv7TjYY+kKHM6qzM9WKU7rB5J=RE_oaaW1XcM1Jr+ap=-pJOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200513220222.24953c0a@simplexum.com>
<CAPv7TjbZVYTztQLd2dxjzFajhPTg23iWtapkVBzz+z0q=pH2rw@mail.gmail.com>
<20200514095215.4ea20666@simplexum.com>
<CAPv7TjYY+kKHM6qzM9WKU7rB5J=RE_oaaW1XcM1Jr+ap=-pJOg@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: simplexum.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 14 May 2020 11:42:45 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] TLA+ specification for Succint Atomic Swap
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 07:05:24 -0000
=D0=92 Thu, 14 May 2020 07:31:13 +0200
Ruben Somsen <rsomsen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>=20
> >While refund_tx_1 is in the mempool, Bob gives success_tx to the
> >friendly miner
>=20
> I see, so you're talking about prior to protocol completion, right
> after Alice sends Bob the success_tx. The reason this is not an issue
> is because Alice and Bob both had to misbehave in order for this to
> happen. Bob is misbehaving here because he should have published the
> success_tx before refund_tx_1 became valid, and Alice is misbehaving
> here because she should have sent the revoke_tx (which invalidates
> the success_tx) followed by refund_tx_2 (revealing her secret only
> AFTER Bob can no longer claim the BTC). In other words: yes, the
> protocol can fail if Alice and Bob together work towards that goal. A
> feature, not a bug. This won't happen if either of them doesn't want
> it to. I imagine this is difficult to model.
Right. But it should be noted that it is not enough that Bob publishes
success_tx before refund_tx_1 became valid. The success_tx needs to be
confirmed before refund_tx_1 became valid.
Only Bob can spend success_tx so this is unlikely to be the practical
problem, unless the original fee of success_tx is too small and Bob
epically screws up CPFP-ing it.
> >Bob will receive BTC, and the LTC can be locked forever, but Bob
> >doesn't =20
> care, he got his BTC.
>=20
> No, because diagram step 5 comes before step 6 -- Alice won't give
> her key until she learns secretBob.
I somehow missed it, and steps 5 and 6 in the diagram was not modelled
at all (on the other hand, it made the model simpler and I had
something working relatively quick). I now made the `signers_map` into
variable that can be changed to give Bob the ability to sign for Alice.
With that change, step 6 can be modelled, but this will add a bunch of
new txs to the model (each Alice&Bob spend will have 'Bob unilateral
override' case)
|
