3 ms·
But they also require observation for cheating because time matters in the execution of contract settlement when you have bad actors. It is still trustless thou
by hndamien 8y ago
But they also require observation for cheating because time matters in the execution of contract settlement when you have bad actors. It is still trustless though.
- CydeWeys 8y agoYou've always had to protect against cheating though; what's changed? The standard advice from as far back as I can remember is to wait six confirmations on transactions, more for big transactions, and 120 for freshly minted coins.
- hndamien 8y agoThe difference here is you can just wait long and you are good. In the case of lightning network there is a time limit. If you wait too long and don't notice what happened/ is happening you are cooked.
- codetrotter 8y ago> In the case of lightning network there is a time limit. If you wait too long and don't notice what happened/ is happening you are cooked. Could you expand a bit more on this?
- hndamien 8y agoEssentially, in the case we of somebody cheating you, they would broadcast a transaction co-signed by you that would close the channel in their favor. This wouldn’t be effective immediately but would have a time component associated from when the channel was opened. To prevent this state from closing out this way, you would be able to broadcast the proof of the actual offchain ledger balance (with the valid signatures for all transactions) and the co-signed transaction to close the channel. For all of this proof, you would also get to take the cheaters money, further disincentivisimg this behavior. However, if the time ran out before you noticed, none of you proof and signed offchain transactions would matter.