Replying to Avatar SBW

Please help me out here, here's a scheme:

1. Strike user authorizes a $100 worth LN payment to website, internally strike converts them into BTC which at the moment costs, say, $100000.

2. Website holds incoming 0.001 BTC payment for, say, 6 hours.

2.1. If BTC price rises during that time to, say, $110000 then user has sent $110 at that point. Website accepts a payment, converts it to USD, sends $105 USD back to user.

2.2. If BTC price declines during that time to, say, $90000 then user has sent $90 at that point. Website cancels a payment.

2.2.2. If $90 gets back to user account at Strike, then Strike users are susceptible to an attack where payee is incentivized to hold each incoming payment they send.

2.2.1. If $100 gets back to user account at Strike, then Strike itself is susceptible to this kind of attack.

Has this been discussed?

Avatar
j 2y ago

This is the free option problem. z-man has a good thread on it on lightning-dev from 2018 irc.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
SBW 2y ago

Okay, so is it just that? Strike is susceptible?

Avatar
j 2y ago

Yes, it's a big problem.

Strike has the advantage that they can prevent payments to abusuve destinations, but a "non-custodial" taproot assets usd channel would be even more susceptible

Thread collapsed
Avatar
j 2y ago

I'm not sure how strike handles it but blink passes the risk to the user (returns funds to user's btc wallet)

Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed