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?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

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

Called arbitrage. Services that keep doing this abusively with fail over time to retain users. Speed is a huge factor in a bitcoin exchange, otherwise why use it and not paypal?

Also, in general i believe most agree to send what the price is at the time of sending, provider taking the risk. One reason why spreads are so high on exchanges.