Payment channel networks provide a fast and scalable solution to relay funds, acting as a second layer to slower and less scalable blockchain protocols. In this paper, we present an accessible, low-cost attack in which the attacker paralyzes multiple payment network channels for several days. The attack is based on overloading channels with requests that are kept unresolved until their expiration time. Reaching the maximum allowed unresolved requests (HTLCs) locks the channel for new payments. The attack is in fact inherent to the way off-chain networks are constructed, since limits on the number of unresolved payments are derived from limits on the blockchain. We consider three main versions of the attack: one in which the attacker attempts to block as many high liquidity channels as possible, one in which it disconnects as many pairs of nodes as it can, and one in which it tries to isolate individual nodes from the network. We evaluate the costs of these attacks on Bitcoin's Lightning Network and compare how changes in the network have affected the cost of attack. Specifically, we consider how recent changes to default parameters in each of the main Lightning implementations contribute to the attacks. As we evaluate the attacks, we also look at statistics on parameters in the Lightning Network, which are of independent interest and compare the various implementations of Lightning nodes. Finally, we suggest mitigation techniques that make these attacks much harder to carry out.
翻译:支付渠道网络提供了快速且可扩缩的中继资金解决方案, 作为第二层, 向更慢、 更慢、 更慢的连锁协议过渡。 在本文中, 我们展示了一次容易获取的低成本袭击, 攻击者在袭击中瘫痪了数天的多个支付网络渠道。 袭击基于超负荷的渠道, 其请求一直得不到解决, 直至其到期。 达到最大允许的未解决请求( HTLCs) 锁定新付款渠道。 袭击事实上是离链网络建设过程所固有的, 原因是未解决的付款数量来自链中的限制。 我们考虑的是这次袭击的三个主要版本: 攻击者试图屏蔽尽可能多的高流动性渠道, 袭击者试图切断尽可能多的节点, 并且试图将单个节点与网络隔开。 我们评估了Bitcoin Lightning网络的这些袭击的成本, 比较网络的变化是如何影响袭击成本的。 具体地说, 我们考虑一下每个主“ 照明” 实施过程中的默认参数的最新变化如何。 我们观察了这些“ ” 选择了“灯光” 袭击的更难的参数。