Joost Jager [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2019-11-08 📝 Original message: > > > The goal of this ...
📅 Original date posted:2019-11-08
📝 Original message:
>
> > The goal of this pre-payment proposal is to remove the need for
> > trusted parties
> >
> > Trust isn't the right word. It is a level of service that you provide
> > to your peers. If nodes are cognizant of the fact that the level of
> > service they receive goes down if they forward spam, they will be
> > careful on the incoming side. Require peers to build up a reputation
> > before increasing the inbound limits that apply to the channels with
> them.
We can learn from the current situation in emails, that a system based
> on reputation tends to concentrate the power in the hands of few big and
> strong actors (gmail and co). If we have from the beginning a mechanism
> to fight against spam by paying to send message, we can perhaps have a
> really distributed system which cannot be censured.
>
Can you elaborate on this a bit further? If you consider rate limiting to
be a form of censoring, then you can still censor if there is a prepay.
I am not too familiar with the current state of email servers, to what
extent power is concentrated now and how that evolution translates to
Lightning. One difference is that afaik emails don't traverse a path
through multiple mail "nodes". Another is that inboxes of users are very
centralized (gmail and co).
What does that undesired situation exactly look like in the Lightning
Network if nodes would enforce rate limits based on how they rate their
direct peers?
Joost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20191108/26a92d3e/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:
>
> > The goal of this pre-payment proposal is to remove the need for
> > trusted parties
> >
> > Trust isn't the right word. It is a level of service that you provide
> > to your peers. If nodes are cognizant of the fact that the level of
> > service they receive goes down if they forward spam, they will be
> > careful on the incoming side. Require peers to build up a reputation
> > before increasing the inbound limits that apply to the channels with
> them.
We can learn from the current situation in emails, that a system based
> on reputation tends to concentrate the power in the hands of few big and
> strong actors (gmail and co). If we have from the beginning a mechanism
> to fight against spam by paying to send message, we can perhaps have a
> really distributed system which cannot be censured.
>
Can you elaborate on this a bit further? If you consider rate limiting to
be a form of censoring, then you can still censor if there is a prepay.
I am not too familiar with the current state of email servers, to what
extent power is concentrated now and how that evolution translates to
Lightning. One difference is that afaik emails don't traverse a path
through multiple mail "nodes". Another is that inboxes of users are very
centralized (gmail and co).
What does that undesired situation exactly look like in the Lightning
Network if nodes would enforce rate limits based on how they rate their
direct peers?
Joost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20191108/26a92d3e/attachment.html>;