by the second party not signing. you cant have them back. because it requires dual signing.
by this i agree the second party cannot simply "take it from you" without your signature, but you cant take it without theirs
IIRC there is a timeout period after one party initiates the closing of a payment channel. Please take this with a grain of salt, as I'm unsure and this would be a *stupid flaw* to enable the possibility of indefinite state of irresoluteness. I'll do some research on this once I find more time.
thank you for doing research
to help you
the timeout. is just a timeout. signatures still need to be signed.
hopefully a ETHICAL pre-channel transaction (the reset) was signed initially so the deposits can go back out the same way they came in.
but that can be then abused the other way.
EG previous post was party A deposits 1btc, B deposits nothing.. B can extort funds with
UNETHICAL pre-channel transaction (the reset)
and flipping it to this new scenario
previous post was party A deposits 1btc, B deposits nothing..ethical reset created where A gets funds back. then A-B trade goods and services.
now A has the power. A refuses to sign unless he gets the majority back. and eventually A gets the whole thing back and keeps the goods because of the reset is released.
now the problem and flaw carlton is missing.
signing a transaction of 100,000,000,000units
results in a different signature AND TXID compared to
signing a transaction of 100,000,000units
bitcoin will reject it as an invalid tx.
also B cannot just broadcast an in-channel tx based on blockstreams current demonstration as the settlement tx onchain due to in-discrepancies.
LN only works if LN is measuring in sats.
LN will only work using milisats if (in carltons dream) bitcoin is measured in millisats