📅 Original date posted:2019-02-11 📝 Original message: Hi ...

2023-06-09T12:54:12Z

In reply to nevent1q…mdc2
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2019-02-11
📝 Original message:
Hi Laolu,

Using the SURB approach to ACK payments definitely seems like a
sensible approach for all the reasons you listed.

I think this might be a good opportunity to think of an implicit ACK
mechanism too. It might not be useful in the immediate future, but
could reduce some traffic in the long run, especially for streaming
use cases.

I am assuming that streaming payments will encode payment sequence
numbers in the EOB or some place else.

The simple idea being: An ACK for paymentN implicitly ACKs payment1,
payment2 and so on up to paymentN-1 and including paymentN.

Implicit ACKs will help build streaming apps without increased traffic
carrying ACK packets for each sub cent payment.

With implicit ACKs available at LN layer, application libraries and
frameworks can develop streaming payment protocols that play around
with ACK window size etc.

For one off payments, the streaming sequence number is not set and
implicit ACKing is not triggered.

Just a suggestion, knowing quite well I am not aware of all the
complications involved.

Kulpreet

Kulpreet

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 02:20, Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi y'all,
>
> Recently we've started to do more design work related to the Sphinx packet
> (EOB format, rendezvous protocol). This prompted me to re-visit the original
> Sphinx paper to refresh my memory w.r.t some of the finer details of the
> protocol. While I was re-reading the paper, I realized that we may be able
> to use use SURBs (single-use-reply-blocks) to implement a "payment ACK" for
> each sent HTLC.
>
> (it's worth mentioning that switching to HORNET down the line would solve
> this problem as well since the receiver already gets a multi-use backwards
> route that they can use to send information back to the receiver)
>
> Right now HTLC routing is mainly a game of "send and hope it arrives", as
> you have no clear indication of the _arrival_ of an HTLC at the destination.
> Instead, you only receive a protocol level message if the HTLC failed for
> w/e reason, or if it was successfully redeemed. As part of BOLT 1.1, it was
> agreed upon that we should implement some sort of "payment ACK" feature. A
> payment ACK scheme is strongly desired as it:
>
> * Allows the sender to actually know when a payment has reached the
> receiver which is useful for many higher level protocols. Atm, the
> sender is unable to distinguish an HTLC being "black holed" from one
> that's actually reached the sender, and they're just holding on to it.
> * AMP implementations would be aided by being able to receive feedback on
> successfully routed splits. If we're able to have the receiver ACK each
> partial payment, then implementations can more aggressively split
> payments as they're able to gain assurance that the first 2 BTC of 5
> total have actually reached the sender, and weren't black holed.
> * Enforcing and relying on ACKs may also thwart silly games receivers
> might play, claiming that the HTLC "didn't actually arrive".
>
> Some also call this feature a "soft error" as a possible implementation
> might to re-use the existing onion error protocol we've deployed today. For
> reference, in order to send back errors back long the route in a way that
> doesn't reveal the sender of the HTLC to the receiver (or any of the
> intermediate nodes) we re-use the shared secret each hop has derived, and
> onion wrap a MAC'd error to the sender. Each hop can't actually check that
> they've received a well formed error, but the sender is able to attribute an
> error to a node in the route based on which shared secret they're able to
> check the MAC with.
>
> The original Sphinx packet format has a way for the receiver to send a
> message back to the sender. This was originally envisioned to allow the
> receiver to send a replay email/message back to the sender without knowing
> who they were, and also in a manner that was bit-wise indistinguishable from
> a regular forwarded packet. This is called a SURB or "single use reply
> block". A SURB is composed of: a pre-crafted sphinx packet for the
> "backwards route" (which can be distinct from the forwards route), the first
> hop of the backwards route, and finally a symmetric key to use when
> encrypting the reply.
>
> When we more or less settled on using Sphinx, we started to remove things
> that we didn't have a clear use for at the time. Two things that were
> removed were the original end-to-end payload, and also the SURB. Removing
> the payload made the packet size smaller, and it didn't seem realistic to
> give _each_ hop a SURB to send reply back.
>
> In order to implement payment ACKs, we can have the sender craft a SURB (for
> the ACK), and mark the receipt of the SURB as the payment ACK itself.
> Creating and processing a SURB is identical to the regular HTLC packets we
> use today. As a result, the code impact to the code sphinx packet logic is
> minimal. We'd then also re-introduce the e2e payload so we can carry the
> SURB in the forward direction (HLTC add). The backwards packet would also
> have a payload of random bytes with the same size as a regular packet to
> make them look identical on the wire.
>
> This payload can further be put to use in order to implement streaming or
> subscription payments in a way. Since we must add a payload for in order to
> send/reply look the same, we can also piggy back some useful additional
> data. Each time a payment is sent, the receiver can use the extra payload to
> stack on details such as:
> * A new invoice to pay for the metered service being paid for.
> * An invoice along with a deadline for when this must be paid, lest the
> subscription service expire.
> * Details of lightning-native API
> * etc, etc
>
> IMO, this approach is better than a potential client-server payment
> negotiation protocol as it doesn't require any additional servers along side
> the node, also maintains sender anonymity, and doesn't rely on any sort of
> PKI.
>
> From the prospective of packet-analysis, errors today are identifiable due
> to the packet size (though we do pad them out to avoid being able to
> distinguish some errors from others on the wide). SURBs on the other hand,
> have the same profile as regular HTLC adds since they use the same Sphinx
> packet format. Unlike the wrapped onion errors, intermediate nodes are also
> able to validate the integrity of the payment ACK as they'll check the per-hop
> MAC as normal. Additionally, the replies naturally create cover traffic as
> they look like regular payments.
>
> One down side is that this would essentially double the size of HTLC
> messages on the network today, as they need to also carry SURB. Most
> candidates for possible rendezvous schemes to deploy would also increase the
> packet size if up to 20 hops it be allowed in both directions. We also
> (from my PoV), don't really have a feel on how much of an issue the 1.2KB
> HTLC packet size is today in the network.
>
> By re-introducing SURBs, we have an opportunity to cleanly solve the payment
> ACK issue, re-use a component of our favorite thing in Lightning, enable
> protocol-level streaming/subscription payments and also make replies
> indistinguishable-ish from regular payments.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- Laolu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev

Nostr notes by

📅 Original date posted:2019-02-11 📝 Original message: Hi ...