Hi Rene, > In their technical document [1] they mention that their new patch cannot defend against a large botnet and suggest that anonymous credentials [2] among other techniques should be investigated.
>From my memory, mitigating channel jamming with dynamic proof-of-work (e.g bip154) was discussed during Zurich lightning event back in 2021, and discarded exactly on this motivation that it wouldn't fit the hashrate capabilities of a large botnet in the real-world of mobile-first client with constrained CPUs. The Tor scheme has been aware on my side since a while. Since then, I've been working on an implementation of Privacy Pass (quoted in the Kadianakis mail) dubbed Staking Credentials [0]. Primarily replacing cryptosystems by elliptic curve based rather than blinded RSA like the IETF draft [1] and with credentials loaded with sats as a user challenge. I'm currently working on a Rust implementation architecture-agnostic to fit the Lightning Network and Nostr-based services/routing purposes [2] [3]. Looking forward to a game-theory formalization of this system dynamics. Best, Antoine [0] https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2022/11/30/#reputation-credentials-proposal-to-mitigate-ln-jamming-attacks [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-rsa-blind-signatures-03 [2] https://github.com/lightning/bolts/pull/1043 [3] https://github.com/civkit/staking-credentials Le dim. 27 août 2023 à 23:36, René Pickhardt <r.pickha...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Dear fellow Lightning Network developers, > > given the congestion problems with channels (aka jamming) that we are > facing and the various proposals and ideas that are floating around I > thought I quickly notify you that the TOR project has introduced a dynamic > proof of work system together with a market based auction system for > bandwidth via a priority queue to fight DoS attacks [0]. While our problems > differ I think there are still enough similarities to justify the relevance > of this mail. > > In their technical document [1] they mention that their new patch cannot > defend against a large botnet and suggest that anonymous credentials [2] > among other techniques should be investigated. > > Personal comment: I am a bit surprised that while they obviously looked at > Bitcoin they seemed to not have seriously considered to just use Bitcoin > (for example via Lightning Network paywalls) or a mining protocol directly. > Instead they argue that the auction based bids are more suitable than a > static difficulty target as used in bitcoin. However IMHO the dynamic > properties of their auction mechanism could easily have been achieve by the > amount of sats being offered instead of a dynamic proof of work solution. > > With kind regards Rene Pickhardt > > > [0] > https://blog.torproject.org/introducing-proof-of-work-defense-for-onion-services/ > > [1] > https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/torspec/-/blob/main/proposals/327-pow-over-intro.txt > > [2] https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2020-March/014198.html > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
