Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-07-03 📝 Original message: On 7/1/22 9:09 PM, ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-07-03
📝 Original message:
On 7/1/22 9:09 PM, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> > Ultimately, paying suffers from the standard PoW-for-spam issue - you
> > cannot assign a reasonable cost that an attacker cares about without
> > impacting the system's usability due to said cost.
>
> Applying this statement to related a area
I mean, I think its only mostly-related, cause HTLCs are pretty different in cost, but.
> would you also agree that proposals
> to introduce pre-payments for HTLCs to mitigate jamming attacks is similarly
> a dead end?
I dunno if its a "dead end", but, indeed, the naive proposals I'm definitely no fan of whatsoever. I
certainly remain open to being shown I'm wrong.
> Personally, this has been my opinion for some time now. Which
> is why I advocate for the forwarding pass approach (gracefully degrade to
> stratified topology), which in theory would allow the major flows of the
> network to continue in the face of disruption.
I'm starting to come around to allowing a "pay per HTLC-locked-time" fee, with Rusty's proposal
around allowing someone to force-close a channel to "blame"
a hop for not failing back after fees stop coming in. Its really nifty in theory and doesn't have
all the classic issues that up-front-fees have, but it puts a very, very, very high premium on high
uptime, which may be catastrophic, dunno.
Matt
📝 Original message:
On 7/1/22 9:09 PM, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> > Ultimately, paying suffers from the standard PoW-for-spam issue - you
> > cannot assign a reasonable cost that an attacker cares about without
> > impacting the system's usability due to said cost.
>
> Applying this statement to related a area
I mean, I think its only mostly-related, cause HTLCs are pretty different in cost, but.
> would you also agree that proposals
> to introduce pre-payments for HTLCs to mitigate jamming attacks is similarly
> a dead end?
I dunno if its a "dead end", but, indeed, the naive proposals I'm definitely no fan of whatsoever. I
certainly remain open to being shown I'm wrong.
> Personally, this has been my opinion for some time now. Which
> is why I advocate for the forwarding pass approach (gracefully degrade to
> stratified topology), which in theory would allow the major flows of the
> network to continue in the face of disruption.
I'm starting to come around to allowing a "pay per HTLC-locked-time" fee, with Rusty's proposal
around allowing someone to force-close a channel to "blame"
a hop for not failing back after fees stop coming in. Its really nifty in theory and doesn't have
all the classic issues that up-front-fees have, but it puts a very, very, very high premium on high
uptime, which may be catastrophic, dunno.
Matt