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 _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
