📅 Original date posted:2022-07-03
📝 Original message:
On 7/1/22 9:09 PM, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> > Ultimately, paying suffers from the standard PoW-for-spam issue - you
> > cannot assign a reasonable cost that an attacker cares about without
> > impacting the system's usability due to said cost.
>
> Applying this statement to related a area
I mean, I think its only mostly-related, cause HTLCs are pretty different in cost, but.
> would you also agree that proposals
> to introduce pre-payments for HTLCs to mitigate jamming attacks is similarly
> a dead end?
I dunno if its a "dead end", but, indeed, the naive proposals I'm definitely no fan of whatsoever. I
certainly remain open to being shown I'm wrong.
> Personally, this has been my opinion for some time now. Which
> is why I advocate for the forwarding pass approach (gracefully degrade to
> stratified topology), which in theory would allow the major flows of the
> network to continue in the face of disruption.
I'm starting to come around to allowing a "pay per HTLC-locked-time" fee, with Rusty's proposal
around allowing someone to force-close a channel to "blame"
a hop for not failing back after fees stop coming in. Its really nifty in theory and doesn't have
all the classic issues that up-front-fees have, but it puts a very, very, very high premium on high
uptime, which may be catastrophic, dunno.
Matt
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-09 13:06:35
in reply to nevent1q…98wd
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuPublished at
2023-06-09 13:06:35Event JSON
{
"id": "10612da6c55b6e8dea2175bcc16a75ed16058531de86dfff2ab4e11a195d309c",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686315995,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"add1c4290260e2dc63c6102c94233677cad0a1290347eea023c4a78984a8e64d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"240fd87cafea98c697e2dfc70b6e5ad45e61b29cc2724b08ecec6f74f8a7f781",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"2df3fc2660459521b852c995d4fc1a93938389a5e085677d0ebb33ef92cc5476"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-07-03\n📝 Original message:\nOn 7/1/22 9:09 PM, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote:\n\u003e Hi Matt,\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e Ultimately, paying suffers from the standard PoW-for-spam issue - you\n\u003e \u003e cannot assign a reasonable cost that an attacker cares about without\n\u003e \u003e impacting the system's usability due to said cost.\n\u003e \n\u003e Applying this statement to related a area\n\nI mean, I think its only mostly-related, cause HTLCs are pretty different in cost, but.\n\n\u003e would you also agree that proposals\n\u003e to introduce pre-payments for HTLCs to mitigate jamming attacks is similarly\n\u003e a dead end?\n\nI dunno if its a \"dead end\", but, indeed, the naive proposals I'm definitely no fan of whatsoever. I \ncertainly remain open to being shown I'm wrong.\n\n\u003e Personally, this has been my opinion for some time now. Which\n\u003e is why I advocate for the forwarding pass approach (gracefully degrade to\n\u003e stratified topology), which in theory would allow the major flows of the\n\u003e network to continue in the face of disruption.\n\nI'm starting to come around to allowing a \"pay per HTLC-locked-time\" fee, with Rusty's proposal \naround allowing someone to force-close a channel to \"blame\"\n a hop for not failing back after fees stop coming in. Its really nifty in theory and doesn't have \nall the classic issues that up-front-fees have, but it puts a very, very, very high premium on high \nuptime, which may be catastrophic, dunno.\n\nMatt",
"sig": "01d0eeeb26cd27ef854f8c1e8b79e7d6893040ca8e7e42f76d29c78ee05f2b50ea42193648497609b0d43ff7fdafdf1110100372dc43efb4f876aa743f94130b"
}