search

movementlabsxyz / MIP

Movement Improvement Proposals
13 stars 13 forks source link

[review] MD-14 : Bridge Should Use A More Secure Timelock #14

Open 0xPrimata opened 2 months ago

0xPrimata commented 2 months ago

Summary

MD-14

l-monninger commented 2 months ago

@0xPrimata

For D1 and D2, you want to essentially make an assumption about the liveness of the bridge as opposed to the infallibility of the relayed time-lock, right?

l-monninger commented 2 months ago

right now we also have an issue where the timelock on both sides NEED to be different, that was in the original design, to prevent racing conditions. That’s not present in the current implementation.

@0xPrimata this would not be call for an MIP though. This would be an issue with the current implementation as opposed to the proposed design.

0xPrimata commented 2 months ago

@0xPrimata

For D1 and D2, you want to essentially make an assumption about the liveness of the bridge as opposed to the infallibility of the relayed time-lock, right?

Well, both make an assumption about the liveness of the bridge, I'm just removing the infallibility of the relayed time-lock

l-monninger commented 1 month ago

@0xPrimata

Well, both make an assumption about the liveness of the bridge, I'm just removing the infallibility of the relayed time-lock

Not really. If you make an assumption about the relayed timestamp being trustworthy, then that timestamp will always reflect the correct time from which to offset the lock s.t. will have enough time for the counterparty to claim.

If you don't have that timestamp, you're assuming that the bridge relayed the lock quickly s.t. the counterparty has enough time to claim.