Christian Decker [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-05-20 🗒️ Summary of this message: The author is ...
đź“… Original date posted:2023-05-20
🗒️ Summary of this message: The author is interested in the number of repeat interactions nodes receive from individual senders to determine the effectiveness of local-only reputation systems. However, they realize they were mixing two different proposals and apologize for the confusion. Nodes that forward fewer HTLCs may have difficulty building a good reputation with active routing nodes, but during an attack, small and low activity nodes can still interact with similar nodes to build a good reputation.
đź“ť Original message:
> > I'd be very interested in how many repeat interactions nodes get from
> individual senders, since that also tells us how much use we can get
> out of local-only reputation based systems, and I wouldn't be
> surprised if, for large routing nodes, we have sufficient data for
> them to make an informed decision, while the edges may be more
> vulnerable, but they'd also be used by way fewer senders, and the
> impact of an attack would also be proportionally smaller.
>
> I’m unclear on what you mean by “individual senders” here? In our
> scheme, nodes only track local reputation for their direct peers so
> what matters is their history with all HTLCs a peer has forwarded to
> them (not whether they come from repeat senders).
Apologies, upon rethinking this I realized I had been mixing two different
proposals in my mind. The criticism of sender-based reputation does
not apply if all we do is track our immediate neighbors. Sorry for the
confusion.
> It’s true that nodes that forward fewer HTLCs are less likely to be
> able to build a good reputation with very active routing nodes. In the
> regular operation of the network, this should have low to no impact on
> their activity - they don’t require much from their peers anyway.
> During an attack, small and low activity nodes will temporarily be in
> competition for large routing nodes’ scarce liquidity and slots, but
> will still be able to interact with similar nodes where they have
> better chances of building a good reputation.
That matches my own interpretation very well, thanks.
Cheers,
Christian
🗒️ Summary of this message: The author is interested in the number of repeat interactions nodes receive from individual senders to determine the effectiveness of local-only reputation systems. However, they realize they were mixing two different proposals and apologize for the confusion. Nodes that forward fewer HTLCs may have difficulty building a good reputation with active routing nodes, but during an attack, small and low activity nodes can still interact with similar nodes to build a good reputation.
đź“ť Original message:
> > I'd be very interested in how many repeat interactions nodes get from
> individual senders, since that also tells us how much use we can get
> out of local-only reputation based systems, and I wouldn't be
> surprised if, for large routing nodes, we have sufficient data for
> them to make an informed decision, while the edges may be more
> vulnerable, but they'd also be used by way fewer senders, and the
> impact of an attack would also be proportionally smaller.
>
> I’m unclear on what you mean by “individual senders” here? In our
> scheme, nodes only track local reputation for their direct peers so
> what matters is their history with all HTLCs a peer has forwarded to
> them (not whether they come from repeat senders).
Apologies, upon rethinking this I realized I had been mixing two different
proposals in my mind. The criticism of sender-based reputation does
not apply if all we do is track our immediate neighbors. Sorry for the
confusion.
> It’s true that nodes that forward fewer HTLCs are less likely to be
> able to build a good reputation with very active routing nodes. In the
> regular operation of the network, this should have low to no impact on
> their activity - they don’t require much from their peers anyway.
> During an attack, small and low activity nodes will temporarily be in
> competition for large routing nodes’ scarce liquidity and slots, but
> will still be able to interact with similar nodes where they have
> better chances of building a good reputation.
That matches my own interpretation very well, thanks.
Cheers,
Christian