ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-12-28 📝 Original message: Good morning CJP, > > I ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-12-28
📝 Original message:
Good morning CJP,
>
> I think we've already addressed this issue before:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-May/0012
> 92.html
>
> and especially this proposal of me:
> https://bitonic.nl/public/slowdown_prevention.pdf
>
> It's not completely trustless, but I tend to see trustlessness in a
> very pragmatic sense anyway. Trust creates a risk, but if the
> alternative trustless system is very impractical, and the risk is small
> enough, the benefits might simply be worth the risks. Note that this is
> a completely subjective trade-off, so it is only acceptable on an
> individual, voluntary basis.
Thank you very much your information!
It seems to me "trust" is a five-letter word, so I am very hesitant to use it.
I have only skimmed the paper thus far, so...
1. It seems to me that there is still friction here.
RM, being a trusted third party, may very well charge as much as the market will bear. https://nakamotoinstitute.org/trusted-third-parties/
This seems to me to imply that OM (i.e. exchange nodes) will be unable to extract any sizable fee, i.e. any fees that the market would be willing to pay to exchange between assets will be taken by RM as rent, and not by the OM who actually makes the market exist in the first place.
I worry this friction may be too much, so I am hesitant to support this, especially as trusted third parties have not behaved well historically, as per Szabo.
However, if we can somehow make RM punishable for breaches in timing attacks, or some similar mechanism, then it may become workable.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
📝 Original message:
Good morning CJP,
>
> I think we've already addressed this issue before:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-May/0012
> 92.html
>
> and especially this proposal of me:
> https://bitonic.nl/public/slowdown_prevention.pdf
>
> It's not completely trustless, but I tend to see trustlessness in a
> very pragmatic sense anyway. Trust creates a risk, but if the
> alternative trustless system is very impractical, and the risk is small
> enough, the benefits might simply be worth the risks. Note that this is
> a completely subjective trade-off, so it is only acceptable on an
> individual, voluntary basis.
Thank you very much your information!
It seems to me "trust" is a five-letter word, so I am very hesitant to use it.
I have only skimmed the paper thus far, so...
1. It seems to me that there is still friction here.
RM, being a trusted third party, may very well charge as much as the market will bear. https://nakamotoinstitute.org/trusted-third-parties/
This seems to me to imply that OM (i.e. exchange nodes) will be unable to extract any sizable fee, i.e. any fees that the market would be willing to pay to exchange between assets will be taken by RM as rent, and not by the OM who actually makes the market exist in the first place.
I worry this friction may be too much, so I am hesitant to support this, especially as trusted third parties have not behaved well historically, as per Szabo.
However, if we can somehow make RM punishable for breaches in timing attacks, or some similar mechanism, then it may become workable.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj