📅 Original date posted:2023-03-03
🗒️ Summary of this message: A continuous solution can differentiate between an active attacker and a low-traffic neighbor, unlike a binary solution that blocks all low-reputation nodes. Reporting c truthfully is crucial to avoid reputation penalties.
📝 Original message:
> With a binary solution a single attacker can easily fill your quota of
> low-confidence HTLCs and then all low-reputation nodes are blocked. But not
> all of them are attackers, some of them just don't send you enough traffic
> to get a high reputation for instance and you're going to block them too.
> With a continuous solution you can differentiate between an active attacker
> and someone who just sends to nodes with poor connectivity and only block
> the first.
>
If it's very cheap to behave like a neighbour with poor connectivity, why
wouldn't the attacker mimic this, and then block?
Differentiating between a potential attacker and just a low-traffic
neighbour is very difficult. I think that instead of "low/high reputation"
a better way to think about it is "unknown/endorsed", and just consider
which neighbour needs access to all resources and which one doesn't.
The idea of different bins was brought up a few times and might help a bit,
but I am not sure at all that it is worth the complication.
For reporting c truthfully, if you report it too high you will be penalized
> by having your reputation lowered, if you report it too low you will
> penalize your HTLCs and still get the same reputation as if you had
> reported it truthfully.
>
It might be that there is a strong motivation to underestimate than
overestimate. That is – the punishment for underestimating by X is
significantly smaller than for overestimating by X (or vice versa). The
formula you choose can affect this significantly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20230303/4c8fa6ae/attachment.html>;
Clara Shikhelman [ARCHIVE] /
npub1uy…t9vwk
2023-06-09 13:12:50
in reply to nevent1q…a489
Author Public Key
npub1uyhgpz5nsfnvdlcqm3erjsdjasd9pdeaejeetwtkvumm6mp3ujlqxt9vwkPublished at
2023-06-09 13:12:50Event JSON
{
"id": "38e9e60571c5c586cb8d5bed2f1104324bd703f00be33dd5971f55a96b4035a3",
"pubkey": "e12e808a938266c6ff00dc723941b2ec1a50b73dccb395b9766737bd6c31e4be",
"created_at": 1686316370,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"04c8d2207deee5a29f58c418b6b1fba2e6f2d65c47f5d90000113232b9f42047",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2a2f927f4f89ff8ad98d36e6f91802a1e6891186f6592baa1e0b34a25325572b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5e1c3f4a2f0d0158103383abd1e3a582ab18c3ce6e02b50950b7836026135c9b"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-03-03\n🗒️ Summary of this message: A continuous solution can differentiate between an active attacker and a low-traffic neighbor, unlike a binary solution that blocks all low-reputation nodes. Reporting c truthfully is crucial to avoid reputation penalties.\n📝 Original message:\n\u003e With a binary solution a single attacker can easily fill your quota of\n\u003e low-confidence HTLCs and then all low-reputation nodes are blocked. But not\n\u003e all of them are attackers, some of them just don't send you enough traffic\n\u003e to get a high reputation for instance and you're going to block them too.\n\u003e With a continuous solution you can differentiate between an active attacker\n\u003e and someone who just sends to nodes with poor connectivity and only block\n\u003e the first.\n\u003e\n\nIf it's very cheap to behave like a neighbour with poor connectivity, why\nwouldn't the attacker mimic this, and then block?\nDifferentiating between a potential attacker and just a low-traffic\nneighbour is very difficult. I think that instead of \"low/high reputation\"\na better way to think about it is \"unknown/endorsed\", and just consider\nwhich neighbour needs access to all resources and which one doesn't.\n\nThe idea of different bins was brought up a few times and might help a bit,\nbut I am not sure at all that it is worth the complication.\n\nFor reporting c truthfully, if you report it too high you will be penalized\n\u003e by having your reputation lowered, if you report it too low you will\n\u003e penalize your HTLCs and still get the same reputation as if you had\n\u003e reported it truthfully.\n\u003e\n\nIt might be that there is a strong motivation to underestimate than\noverestimate. That is – the punishment for underestimating by X is\nsignificantly smaller than for overestimating by X (or vice versa). The\nformula you choose can affect this significantly.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20230303/4c8fa6ae/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "d9412ce773e231f12f7a0d50e44eff9ea8a5a7d70b310f3dab02baf5cbbd2a7e4630a5b5ba5726dbb85498e301555ef12ba6a5434d08d8307f9c7a6a9fe9d689"
}