From niftynei at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 14:35:52 2019 From: niftynei at gmail.com (lisa neigut) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:35:52 -0600 Subject: [Lightning-dev] A proposal for up-front payments. In-Reply-To: References: <87ftj33w2z.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87ftj0ux3j.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Message-ID: > Imagine the following setup: a network of nodes that trust each other The goal of this pre-payment proposal is to remove the need for trusted parties. On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 07:38 Joost Jager wrote: > > 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? > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: