Replying to Avatar UNLICENSED MONEY TRANSMITTER

regardless of the replacement cycling attack, it's a good practice to limit the size of your routed HTLCs anyway. few are the payments that need more than 1mil sats, and rebalancers will use whatever you give them anyway and do it in parts

default node settings are to have the limit at the size of the channel itself, which is wayyyy more than needed and is just needless risk. do it right now to reduce any kind of risk, as theoretical as it might be

Avatar
Zach⚡️ 2y ago

If a user is using a single, non-routing channel in a LSP model, would this attack be impossible to conduct? All the examples I’ve seen have involved at least one hop.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
UNLICENSED MONEY TRANSMITTER 2y ago

as i understand this attack is risking routing hops, having both incoming and outgoing HTLCs

Thread collapsed