📅 Original date posted:2019-11-07
📝 Original message:
> Imagine the following setup: a network of nodes that trust each other
The goal of this pre-payment proposal is to remove the need for trusted
parties.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 07:38 Joost Jager <joost.jager at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Isn't spam something that can also be addressed by using rate limits for
>> > failures? If all relevant nodes on the network employ rate limits, they
>> can
>> > isolate the spammer and diminish their disruptive abilities.
>>
>> Sure, once the spammer has jammed up the network, he'll be stopped. So
>> will everyone else. Conner had a proposal like this which didn't work,
>> IIRC.
>>
>
> Do you have ref to this proposal?
>
> Imagine the following setup: a network of nodes that trust each other (as
> far as spam is concerned) applies a 100 htlc/sec rate limit to the channels
> between themselves. Channels to untrusted nodes get a rate of only 1
> htlc/sec. Assuming the spammer isn't a trusted node, they can only spam at
> 1 htlc/s and won't jam up the network?
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20191107/70d3266f/attachment.html>;
lisa neigut [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sp…s64t2
2023-06-09 12:57:12
in reply to nevent1q…76jl
Author Public Key
npub1sprhp66c693av0c0n9had046hcdcckp2th25fnmphwstc5e4wg9qxs64t2Published at
2023-06-09 12:57:12Event JSON
{
"id": "35dd7a45cac4591f538f4f54265ce8527f6530ddb65f36b765174a2ff0af2d3b",
"pubkey": "804770eb58d163d63f0f996fd6bebabe1b8c582a5dd544cf61bba0bc5335720a",
"created_at": 1686315432,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0c91e21e034533f122e94b0fd3031654ae905512e27a1262e64ae8c7923a76b8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"510642072f38a80159bb8ea520a5cf12d4d52121fa77365824027a3a4015bb79",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ec3fb08b335b94aace30d13181f2ad0280df9bc34f1a99832c4e2da8fb125eb3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-11-07\n📝 Original message:\n\u003e Imagine the following setup: a network of nodes that trust each other\n\nThe goal of this pre-payment proposal is to remove the need for trusted\nparties.\n\nOn Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 07:38 Joost Jager \u003cjoost.jager at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e \u003e Isn't spam something that can also be addressed by using rate limits for\n\u003e\u003e \u003e failures? If all relevant nodes on the network employ rate limits, they\n\u003e\u003e can\n\u003e\u003e \u003e isolate the spammer and diminish their disruptive abilities.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Sure, once the spammer has jammed up the network, he'll be stopped. So\n\u003e\u003e will everyone else. Conner had a proposal like this which didn't work,\n\u003e\u003e IIRC.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Do you have ref to this proposal?\n\u003e\n\u003e Imagine the following setup: a network of nodes that trust each other (as\n\u003e far as spam is concerned) applies a 100 htlc/sec rate limit to the channels\n\u003e between themselves. Channels to untrusted nodes get a rate of only 1\n\u003e htlc/sec. Assuming the spammer isn't a trusted node, they can only spam at\n\u003e 1 htlc/s and won't jam up the network?\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Lightning-dev mailing list\n\u003e Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20191107/70d3266f/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "7a4d2252cc34f4891ef816a4e40341eff64d5b2875b5e247c60cb8f0321c13cc47e4a625dfc524ba87e8d817fad045b693790180d576bc0f6bd4ff9b8817cd53"
}