📅 Original date posted:2018-05-18
📝 Original message:
Yes Rusty, you are correct that an attacker still gets leverage on their
ability to destroy reputation unless the loss rates increase exponentially.
And I agree that would be a very steep increase, serving do decrease
circuit lengths dramatically. The reasoning for the linear increase in
reputation loss comes from viewing reputation loss as compensation for
time-value lost in locked HTLCs. In a sense, every node pays in reputation
for all of the time-value locked in HTLCs upstream from them in proportion
to the value assigned to it by the owners of the funds.
I'm not sure whether this would be an acceptable way of pricing payment
delays, though I do think it is important to make attackers pay for the
resources they are wasting on the network in some form.
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 4:38 PM, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
> Good morning Rusty,
>
>
> > Also, you talked about reputation_loss_rate as being a private per-node
> >
> > thing, and being an explicit thing in the HTLC. I'm ignoring the
> >
> > former, and assuming the latter.
>
> Reputation (the score) is a private per-node thing, while the
> `reputation_loss_rate` is explicit in the HTLC.
>
> I am uncertain how that changes your analysis, though. In a line network
> like you showed, the reputation "bins" are Node1->Node2 and Node2->Node1
> and so on. It may be more useful to think of the reputation bins as
> assigned to half-chans than to nodes.
>
> So the initial Mallory3->Node18->Mallory2 gives high reputation to
> half-chans Node18->Mallory3 and Node18->Mallory2, then sacrifices the
> Node18->Mallory3 reputation to destroy the NodeN -> NodeN+1 and
> NodeN+1->NodeN reputations.
>
> Along that line, reputation lost is higher as N increases. Graphing
> reputation lost along that line, we form a triangle, and the area of the
> triangle is the total reputation destroyed. Only the length of one edge of
> the triangle is what is lost by the Node18->Mallory3 reputation score. So
> yes, it seems you are correct here.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180518/f341c9c4/attachment.html>;
Jim Posen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nc…lqt2n
2023-06-09 12:50:29
in reply to nevent1q…v5ru
Author Public Key
npub1ncnj8arudstdxzfhxk7k4nwgkrw3hyw8sgt0wqqmm5hh2c4knmgs2lqt2nPublished at
2023-06-09 12:50:29Event JSON
{
"id": "4216edb2ef85e119990a25d621665ca3eb71c6e5acd472631d1c82c88a4fc540",
"pubkey": "9e2723f47c6c16d3093735bd6acdc8b0dd1b91c78216f7001bdd2f7562b69ed1",
"created_at": 1686315029,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ec647d42dc739e5a708f79cd6e7400519e655a3f7062723c1ca708888c19c0eb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6ba57a77f54a7e20ee3f4b33324dc1797e17b1da9c7bc06dd9f776ed80947e5e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-05-18\n📝 Original message:\nYes Rusty, you are correct that an attacker still gets leverage on their\nability to destroy reputation unless the loss rates increase exponentially.\nAnd I agree that would be a very steep increase, serving do decrease\ncircuit lengths dramatically. The reasoning for the linear increase in\nreputation loss comes from viewing reputation loss as compensation for\ntime-value lost in locked HTLCs. In a sense, every node pays in reputation\nfor all of the time-value locked in HTLCs upstream from them in proportion\nto the value assigned to it by the owners of the funds.\n\nI'm not sure whether this would be an acceptable way of pricing payment\ndelays, though I do think it is important to make attackers pay for the\nresources they are wasting on the network in some form.\n\nOn Fri, May 18, 2018 at 4:38 PM, ZmnSCPxj \u003cZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Good morning Rusty,\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e Also, you talked about reputation_loss_rate as being a private per-node\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e thing, and being an explicit thing in the HTLC. I'm ignoring the\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e former, and assuming the latter.\n\u003e\n\u003e Reputation (the score) is a private per-node thing, while the\n\u003e `reputation_loss_rate` is explicit in the HTLC.\n\u003e\n\u003e I am uncertain how that changes your analysis, though. In a line network\n\u003e like you showed, the reputation \"bins\" are Node1-\u003eNode2 and Node2-\u003eNode1\n\u003e and so on. It may be more useful to think of the reputation bins as\n\u003e assigned to half-chans than to nodes.\n\u003e\n\u003e So the initial Mallory3-\u003eNode18-\u003eMallory2 gives high reputation to\n\u003e half-chans Node18-\u003eMallory3 and Node18-\u003eMallory2, then sacrifices the\n\u003e Node18-\u003eMallory3 reputation to destroy the NodeN -\u003e NodeN+1 and\n\u003e NodeN+1-\u003eNodeN reputations.\n\u003e\n\u003e Along that line, reputation lost is higher as N increases. Graphing\n\u003e reputation lost along that line, we form a triangle, and the area of the\n\u003e triangle is the total reputation destroyed. Only the length of one edge of\n\u003e the triangle is what is lost by the Node18-\u003eMallory3 reputation score. So\n\u003e yes, it seems you are correct here.\n\u003e\n\u003e Regards,\n\u003e ZmnSCPxj\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180518/f341c9c4/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "e4638e374a638595f0f444bc168cac9dc3bbc42d565b00c9448469a0dee569fb054f2c45b22c8c7fb111961b7443508aae16b75e72647101d7989727270bbeda"
}