Hi Tony,
> Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately since
one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears that
there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them once
a week.
As I think you're referring to my post of March 21th
Hi Christian,
Thanks for your comments! We will discuss this further in the upcoming call
on the 15th, would be great to see you there!
> this is an intrinsic issue with reputation systems, and the main
> reason I'm sceptical w.r.t. their usefulness in lightning.
> Fundamentally any reputation
From my perspective it really comes down to whether you want security
*guarantees* or data to assist you in making probabilistic judgments about
future behavior. Reputation data or reputation systems will never give you
guarantees for the reasons Christian explains. But reputation data is
Good morning mailing list, et al.,
Let me explain the various possible mitigations and their drawbacks.
Many of these are either "LSP trusts client" or "client trusts LSP", in the
sense that it is possible for the second mover (client in "LSP trusts client";
LSP in "client trusts LSP") to
Hi Antoine,
this is an intrinsic issue with reputation systems, and the main
reason I'm sceptical w.r.t. their usefulness in lightning.
Fundamentally any reputation system bases their expectations for the
future on experiences they made in the past, and they are thus always
susceptible to sudden
Hey Matt, Zman,
> I propose that we DO lock our UTXOs after tx_completes have been
> exchanged IF we are the only contributor. We don't have to worry
> about liquidity griefing in this case, since the peer has no
> tx_signatures to withhold from us.
While this is true for dual funding, this
