0

From the Bitcoin Lightning Network:

it is possible to find a path across the network similar to routing packets on the internet.

Is routing approach of Bitcoin Lighning Network performed in a "decentralized" and "trust-less" manner ?

Also, the fact that in the Bitcoin network there is no routing table does not matter ?

|improve this question
1

Is routing decentralized and trustless:

Generally, yes. It uses sphinx onion-routing to prevent any peer along the way to know origin/destination of payment.

Also note that Information of channel balances can leak if routing attempts are used to probe liquidity along a route.

Routing is not robust against sybil attacks, as compromised nodes can determine routes by reconstructing path via payment_hash in the htlc output scripts.

It is, however, incumbent upon the channel operator to ensure the lightning implementation is always synced with a full-node. Only this way can it detect a cheating channel counter-party and broadcast a penalty transaction. Watchtowers may provide vigilance as a service but they are not trustless

Also, note that the lightning network is a separate p2p network.

Discovering topology occurs with peers gossiping.

|improve this answer
  • Thank you , Could you please say that if "separate p2p network" causes a kind of centralization or trust-based? If you could introduce a reference/paper/website on explanation of "separate p2p network" it would be perfect. Thanks – sas Nov 30 '18 at 10:14
  • 1
    I cant really say that because there are no guarantees of centralization nor decentralization. Some argue liquidity for channels is expensive so it will aggregate in the hands of exchanges/individuals with high BTC accumulated. So nodes with high channel count activity will tend to have more payments touted though them, there may be a centralization pressure, yes. However, same goes with mining pooling and large merchants on the Bitcoin network. – James C. Nov 30 '18 at 10:19
  • You can say that Lightning is trustless in the sense that you can always penalize invalid channel closures (given you see them before the timeout). – James C. Nov 30 '18 at 10:20
  • 1
    Sorry this is a little heavy but checkout the peer chapter in the lightning protocol rfc: github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc?files=1 Note that the lightning network “interfaces” with the Bitcoin network via Bitcoin transactions (open, commitments, close). – James C. Nov 30 '18 at 10:59
  • 1
    Thats always the trade-off - a routing table via distributed hash table is slow, but decentralized. Central Beacons (even if somehow selected deterministically) are more performant, yet centralized. – James C. Nov 30 '18 at 11:29

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.