From joost.jager at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 13:37:51 2019 From: joost.jager at gmail.com (Joost Jager) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:37:51 +0100 Subject: [Lightning-dev] A proposal for up-front payments. In-Reply-To: <87ftj0ux3j.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87ftj33w2z.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87ftj0ux3j.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Message-ID: > > > Isn't spam something that can also be addressed by using rate limits for > > failures? If all relevant nodes on the network employ rate limits, they > can > > isolate the spammer and diminish their disruptive abilities. > > Sure, once the spammer has jammed up the network, he'll be stopped. So > will everyone else. Conner had a proposal like this which didn't work, > IIRC. > Do you have ref to this proposal? Imagine the following setup: a network of nodes that trust each other (as far as spam is concerned) applies a 100 htlc/sec rate limit to the channels between themselves. Channels to untrusted nodes get a rate of only 1 htlc/sec. Assuming the spammer isn't a trusted node, they can only spam at 1 htlc/s and won't jam up the network? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: