hello, I'm a curious lurker trying to follow this conversation: On Thu, 10 May 2018, 2:40 pm ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev, < lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > The concern however is that the CLTV already partly leaks the distance > from the payee, whereas the reputation-loss-rate leaks distance from the > payer. It is often not interesting to know that some entity is getting > paid, but it probably far more interesting to know WHO paid WHO, so leaking > both distances simultaneously is more than twice as worse as leaking just > one distance. > Consider an asymetrically-resourced malevolent node that wants the ability to harm a specific small nodes without aquiring a bad reputation (and is willing to pay for it). In preparation, this bad boss node directs normal traffic to sacrificial nodes they control, while understating the reputation-risk (truthfully as it turns out, because they have out of band influence over the node). When the time comes, the sacrificial node inflicts delay on the victim node and they both suffer, while the boss keeps her nose clean. Is it the case that understating risk of legitimate traffic from boss node to sacrificial node effectively allows transfer of reputation to the sacrificial node in preparation for attack, while at the same time obscuring their association? Chris Gough >
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
