From 3b3a0f2d59f94d079a88a0906df3ee360fc49cf8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "kristen@oreilly.com" Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 12:59:12 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Edited 10_onion_routing.asciidoc with Atlas code editor --- 10_onion_routing.asciidoc | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/10_onion_routing.asciidoc b/10_onion_routing.asciidoc index 98321f1..ad68521 100644 --- a/10_onion_routing.asciidoc +++ b/10_onion_routing.asciidoc @@ -717,6 +717,7 @@ Bob now has a 1,300-byte onion packet to send to the next hop. It is almost iden .Bob removes the hop payload and left-shifts the rest, filling the gap with new filler image::images/mtln_1025.png["Bob removes the hop payload and left-shifts the rest, filling the gap with new filler"] +[role="pagebreak-before"] No one can tell the difference between filler put there by Alice and filler put there by Bob. Filler is filler! It's all random bytes anyway. Note that if Bob (or one of Bob's other aliases) is present in the route in two distinct locations, then they can tell the difference because the base protocol always uses the same payment hash across the entire route. Atomic multipath payments (AMPs) and Point Time-Locked Contracts (PTLCs) eliminate the correlation vector by randomizing the payment identifier across each route/hop. ==== Bob Constructs the New Onion Packet