📅 Original date posted:2018-01-18
📝 Original message:
> You impose this 25 channels per peer. I start opening a channel to
> you. Because I did not check mempool or because my fee-estimation algo is
> bad, I pay too low a fee. I become impatient and bump it up, which you
> perceive as another open (so it is now 2/25 channels).
It seems, to me, that this example could be pretty easily extended to 1000, or 2000, or -- pretty much anything. In fact, this brings up an important'ish point, possibly. If every channel I "try to open," and then fail to, counts as resources of any kind on the receiver, we've just added a perfect attack surface for a denial of service. However this is arranged, it needs to be arranged in a way that does not have (or at least has a minimal number of) fixed pool of resources/magic numbers of any kind that can be exhausted, after which things "no longer work." To do otherwise is to practically invite someone taking the entire network down with a well-planned/executed process that exhausts this resource across a large number of critical nodes (and there will be critical nodes -- it's just a part of graph theory that this will happen).
😊 /r
7riw77 at gmail.com [ARCHIVE] /
npub1w8…vejz6
2023-06-09 12:48:28
in reply to nevent1q…r0xf
Author Public Key
npub1w8h865x0e2ztpsttdzfv550ulnm426us8jjst2gzazjrf3n4x0aqevejz6Published at
2023-06-09 12:48:28Event JSON
{
"id": "db0b992afd726d92f0b779752cbbf5a368140ca1fe56262653d6af9bf1cb8a81",
"pubkey": "71ee7d50cfca84b0c16b6892ca51fcfcf7556b903ca505a902e8a434c67533fa",
"created_at": 1686314908,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2a4926c7999f60c613526723369cef244df2cc105602a16cdb8a4a5833ba7a81",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7a9de6cfd1090f9fee492417bba4791127729597ba0c451e710841e1a2ff6315",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-01-18\n📝 Original message:\n\u003e \tYou impose this 25 channels per peer. I start opening a channel to\n\u003e you. Because I did not check mempool or because my fee-estimation algo is\n\u003e bad, I pay too low a fee. I become impatient and bump it up, which you\n\u003e perceive as another open (so it is now 2/25 channels).\n\nIt seems, to me, that this example could be pretty easily extended to 1000, or 2000, or -- pretty much anything. In fact, this brings up an important'ish point, possibly. If every channel I \"try to open,\" and then fail to, counts as resources of any kind on the receiver, we've just added a perfect attack surface for a denial of service. However this is arranged, it needs to be arranged in a way that does not have (or at least has a minimal number of) fixed pool of resources/magic numbers of any kind that can be exhausted, after which things \"no longer work.\" To do otherwise is to practically invite someone taking the entire network down with a well-planned/executed process that exhausts this resource across a large number of critical nodes (and there will be critical nodes -- it's just a part of graph theory that this will happen).\n\n😊 /r",
"sig": "91494393b6a8dc2ac1911963ea86fc519476506be63326d96d4aa6561ac3821b26230c14513b7f87f9c45e42272bb9939bee70be2bec01ba239e60d30834dd11"
}