đź“… Original date posted:2023-05-20
🗒️ Summary of this message: The author is interested in the number of repeat interactions nodes receive from individual senders to determine the effectiveness of local-only reputation systems. However, they realize they were mixing two different proposals and apologize for the confusion. Nodes that forward fewer HTLCs may have difficulty building a good reputation with active routing nodes, but during an attack, they can still interact with similar nodes to build a good reputation.
đź“ť Original message:
> > I'd be very interested in how many repeat interactions nodes get from
> individual senders, since that also tells us how much use we can get
> out of local-only reputation based systems, and I wouldn't be
> surprised if, for large routing nodes, we have sufficient data for
> them to make an informed decision, while the edges may be more
> vulnerable, but they'd also be used by way fewer senders, and the
> impact of an attack would also be proportionally smaller.
>
> I’m unclear on what you mean by “individual senders” here? In our
> scheme, nodes only track local reputation for their direct peers so
> what matters is their history with all HTLCs a peer has forwarded to
> them (not whether they come from repeat senders).
Apologies, upon rethinking this I realized I had been mixing two different
proposals in my mind. The criticism of sender-based reputation does
not apply if all we do is track our immediate neighbors. Sorry for the
confusion.
> It’s true that nodes that forward fewer HTLCs are less likely to be
> able to build a good reputation with very active routing nodes. In the
> regular operation of the network, this should have low to no impact on
> their activity - they don’t require much from their peers anyway.
> During an attack, small and low activity nodes will temporarily be in
> competition for large routing nodes’ scarce liquidity and slots, but
> will still be able to interact with similar nodes where they have
> better chances of building a good reputation.
That matches my own interpretation very well, thanks.
Cheers,
Christian
Christian Decker [ARCHIVE] /
npub1wt…gtuyn
2023-06-09 13:13:21
in reply to nevent1q…jdk9
Author Public Key
npub1wtx5qvewc7pd6znlvwktq03mdld05mv3h5dkzfwd3dc30gdmsptsugtuynPublished at
2023-06-09 13:13:21Event JSON
{
"id": "e2dd5cf82246f5b8ebeec4d65ec8781ebd6f10fc5c682209d033d96d883758a5",
"pubkey": "72cd40332ec782dd0a7f63acb03e3b6fdafa6d91bd1b6125cd8b7117a1bb8057",
"created_at": 1686316401,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d567e01754f7ad56700a7e88a3ad8d4e30f00ccda9e19d9f15cf0d7b6ad6b533",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"53e6736cd956c7352f90603758337ee7bb815e3a3284f2d9c01da50b3070849f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ea1494290a3dec12963e0ac21db57b89f1f8f85b1f9de528a8f6fd476d0467a3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-05-20\n🗒️ Summary of this message: The author is interested in the number of repeat interactions nodes receive from individual senders to determine the effectiveness of local-only reputation systems. However, they realize they were mixing two different proposals and apologize for the confusion. Nodes that forward fewer HTLCs may have difficulty building a good reputation with active routing nodes, but during an attack, they can still interact with similar nodes to build a good reputation.\n📝 Original message:\n\u003e \u003e I'd be very interested in how many repeat interactions nodes get from\n\u003e individual senders, since that also tells us how much use we can get\n\u003e out of local-only reputation based systems, and I wouldn't be\n\u003e surprised if, for large routing nodes, we have sufficient data for\n\u003e them to make an informed decision, while the edges may be more\n\u003e vulnerable, but they'd also be used by way fewer senders, and the\n\u003e impact of an attack would also be proportionally smaller.\n\u003e\n\u003e I’m unclear on what you mean by “individual senders” here? In our\n\u003e scheme, nodes only track local reputation for their direct peers so\n\u003e what matters is their history with all HTLCs a peer has forwarded to\n\u003e them (not whether they come from repeat senders).\n\nApologies, upon rethinking this I realized I had been mixing two different\nproposals in my mind. The criticism of sender-based reputation does\nnot apply if all we do is track our immediate neighbors. Sorry for the\nconfusion.\n\n\u003e It’s true that nodes that forward fewer HTLCs are less likely to be\n\u003e able to build a good reputation with very active routing nodes. In the\n\u003e regular operation of the network, this should have low to no impact on\n\u003e their activity - they don’t require much from their peers anyway.\n\u003e During an attack, small and low activity nodes will temporarily be in\n\u003e competition for large routing nodes’ scarce liquidity and slots, but\n\u003e will still be able to interact with similar nodes where they have\n\u003e better chances of building a good reputation.\n\nThat matches my own interpretation very well, thanks.\n\nCheers,\nChristian",
"sig": "03a67416f2d8f23b14ef858c8372da97ebd8e2910c3160a1497ff7ded0f23da7fa09a1214f5d644884a5c04b3f4bdf09f5651a3045b6dd67c087195cd13ee8ed"
}