> I don't think so - today there are at least three different routing goals to
> maximize - (a) privacy,
> (b) fees, (c) success rate. For "live" payment, you probably want to lean
> towards optimizing for
> success rate, and many nodes do today by default. But that isn't the full
> story -
Hi Matt,
> Indeed, it may be explainable, but its still somewhat painful, I think. I
> do wonder if we can enable
> probing via a non-HTLC message and do immediate pre-send-probing to avoid
> paying upfront fees on
> paths that will fail.
>
>
This could be a good idea, but I think that it
On 11/15/22 12:09 PM, Clara Shikhelman wrote:
Matt – I don't know that I agree with "... upfront payments kinda kill the lightning UX ...". I
think that upfront fees are almost essential, even outside the context of jamming. This also helps
with probing, general spam, and other aspects.
Thanks to everyone that came to the meeting, it was a great conversation
and gave us a lot to think about!
Matt – I don't know that I agree with "... upfront payments kinda kill the
lightning UX ...". I think that upfront fees are almost essential, even
outside the context of jamming. This also
Thanks for committing all the time today. I’m much happier with (binary, not-so-)local reputation than I was in the past, at least as better than other reputation systems.I believe you’ve stated a few times that local reputation by itself is far from sufficient and that’s why we need upfront
Hi all,
We are planning a call to discuss this proposal further. It will be on
Monday the 14th, at 7 pm UTC here:
https://meet.jit.si/UnjammingLN
Please let me know if this conflicts with any other Bitcoin event.
Hope to see you all there!
On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 1:25 PM Clara Shikhelman
Hi,
Thanks for your comments!
(I'm less convinced about the unconditional fee as it changes a core
> principle of the network which means that we'll never reach consensus on
> it).
>
I think this is a core principle that opens the network to several attacks
and should be changed. Furthermore,
Hi,
I agree that the local reputation solution is very promising (I'm less
convinced about the unconditional fee as it changes a core principle of the
network which means that we'll never reach consensus on it). What I really
like about it is that it's quite simple and can be quickly deployed
Hi Antoine,
Thank you for the detailed response!
> On the framework for mitigation evaluation, there are few other dimensions
> we have considered in the past with Gleb for our research that could be
> relevant to integrate. One is "centralization", the solution shouldn't
> centralize sensibly
Hi Clara, Sergei
Congrats for the paper!
Here are a few in-flight thoughts browsing the paper.
On introducing a general framework for evaluating attack mitigations, I
think this is relevant as scarce resources wastes, of which jamming is a
subcase is echoed multiple times not only in Lightning,
Hi list,
We would like to share with you our recent research on jamming in
Lightning. We propose a combination of unconditional (~ upfront) fees and
local reputation to fight jamming. We believe this can be a basis for an
efficient and practical solution that can be implemented in the foreseeable
11 matches
Mail list logo
