> You impose this 25 channels per peer. I start opening a channel to > you. Because I did not check mempool or because my fee-estimation algo is > bad, I pay too low a fee. I become impatient and bump it up, which you > perceive as another open (so it is now 2/25 channels).
It seems, to me, that this example could be pretty easily extended to 1000, or 2000, or -- pretty much anything. In fact, this brings up an important'ish point, possibly. If every channel I "try to open," and then fail to, counts as resources of any kind on the receiver, we've just added a perfect attack surface for a denial of service. However this is arranged, it needs to be arranged in a way that does not have (or at least has a minimal number of) fixed pool of resources/magic numbers of any kind that can be exhausted, after which things "no longer work." To do otherwise is to practically invite someone taking the entire network down with a well-planned/executed process that exhausts this resource across a large number of critical nodes (and there will be critical nodes -- it's just a part of graph theory that this will happen). 😊 /r _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
