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
Good morning Mr Nuclear,
> You are correct that the design relies on the honest majority assumption.
> However, I disagree that it restricts the usability of the proposal,
> due to the following considerations.
>
> 1. Any distributed system consensus, including bitcoin PoW consensus,
> relies
Maybe the anonymous credentials approach from [2] could use credentials
loaded with sats?
On Mon 28. 8. 2023 at 0:36, René Pickhardt wrote:
> Dear fellow Lightning Network developers,
>
> given the congestion problems with channels (aka jamming) that we are
> facing and the various proposals
Hey Matt,
Great work on finding this issue, thoroughly testing it against
implementations,
and on the follow-up you did after reporting this to the various teams.
We all agree that having more people spending time poking at the code
to find issues is very beneficial for the project. I hope your
Hi Matt,
> You've definitely done some review for some subset of code, mostly the
anchors code which was added
> not too long ago, but please don't pretend you've reviewed a large volume
of the pull requests in
> LDK, as far as I understand you have several other projects you focus
heavily on,
On 8/26/23 5:03 AM, Antoine Riard wrote:
Hi Matt,
> While you were aware of these fixes at the time, I'd appreciate it if you,
someone who hasn't spent
> much time contributing to LDK over the past two or three years, stop trying
to speak on behalf of
> the LDK project.
While this
Hi Matt,
> While you were aware of these fixes at the time, I'd appreciate it if
you, someone who hasn't spent
> much time contributing to LDK over the past two or three years, stop
trying to speak on behalf of
> the LDK project.
While this statement is blatantly false and disregards all the
