From lf-lists at mattcorallo.com Mon Jul 4 02:00:26 2022 From: lf-lists at mattcorallo.com (Matt Corallo) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2022 22:00:26 -0400 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Onion messages rate-limiting In-Reply-To: References: <990de4a2-39f6-5b38-5fd1-05619b8a7330@mattcorallo.com> Message-ID: <27fa1d5e-09a9-b7ed-d803-a9532518f19e@mattcorallo.com> On 7/1/22 9:09 PM, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote: > Hi Matt, > > > Ultimately, paying suffers from the standard PoW-for-spam issue - you > > cannot assign a reasonable cost that an attacker cares about without > > impacting the system's usability due to said cost. > > Applying this statement to related a area I mean, I think its only mostly-related, cause HTLCs are pretty different in cost, but. > would you also agree that proposals > to introduce pre-payments for HTLCs to mitigate jamming attacks is similarly > a dead end? I dunno if its a "dead end", but, indeed, the naive proposals I'm definitely no fan of whatsoever. I certainly remain open to being shown I'm wrong. > Personally, this has been my opinion for some time now. Which > is why I advocate for the forwarding pass approach (gracefully degrade to > stratified topology), which in theory would allow the major flows of the > network to continue in the face of disruption. I'm starting to come around to allowing a "pay per HTLC-locked-time" fee, with Rusty's proposal around allowing someone to force-close a channel to "blame" a hop for not failing back after fees stop coming in. Its really nifty in theory and doesn't have all the classic issues that up-front-fees have, but it puts a very, very, very high premium on high uptime, which may be catastrophic, dunno. Matt