📅 Original date posted:2019-11-08
📝 Original message:
Joost Jager <joost.jager at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > 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?
Damn, I searched for it but all the obvious keywords turned up blank.
Conner CC'd in case he remembers the discussion and I'm not imagining it?
Anyway, if there are 100 nodes in the network I can still open a channel
to each one and jam it up immediately. And that's not even assuming I
play nice until you trust me, then attack or get taken over.
Cheers,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-09 12:57:13
in reply to nevent1q…n22j
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-09 12:57:13Event JSON
{
"id": "4eb3f5d3855496618d636405ec2d620755ea4285e3a4e95d73caa1a0b4e264f3",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686315433,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0c91e21e034533f122e94b0fd3031654ae905512e27a1262e64ae8c7923a76b8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3957a1bee8cb5552722cbbf53c2e01d18e58668a6c973196494bfc987cd60f3d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"13fd0434c7ac300f7a468a5ad9464b7b94e8b03d7ae88259f3de3a84422822fd"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-11-08\n📝 Original message:\nJoost Jager \u003cjoost.jager at gmail.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\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\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\nDamn, I searched for it but all the obvious keywords turned up blank.\nConner CC'd in case he remembers the discussion and I'm not imagining it?\n\nAnyway, if there are 100 nodes in the network I can still open a channel\nto each one and jam it up immediately. And that's not even assuming I\nplay nice until you trust me, then attack or get taken over.\n\nCheers,\nRusty.",
"sig": "278e74fde1c8c3201f7f395718810cd0c7e4ad0c73ab12c5bd45cfd79ca41af9bda0ca0d0038804591227f95a2212243b866c1d546a52d654d0983edfa53e22c"
}