Author: Anthony Towns 2023-08-03 03:29:50+00:00
Published on: 2023-08-03T03:29:50+00:00
The sender of the email clarifies their goal for their previous comments, stating that monetary-based denial of service (DoS) deterrence is still a valuable area of research. They express concern that others may have misinterpreted the summit notes to mean that monetary approaches are not worth exploring. The sender emphasizes that they provided a rough proof-of-work scheme as an example and not something to actively pursue. They discuss the requirement for using the chain tip as a clock or setting up local clocks with each peer to handle any synchronization issues. They explain that the suggested scheme involves commitment transaction updates and does not require message proof. They differentiate between reputation-based and monetary-based approaches, noting that proving things is more relevant in reputation-based approaches. The sender suggests ways to avoid situations involving high fees and distant timeouts. They explain the concept of getting paid for holding liquidity hostage and clarify the purpose of force closing a channel. They also mention the link between on-chain fees and the scheme they outlined. The sender speculates about the possibility of experimenting with these ideas on a platform that supports smaller Bitcoin denominations. They suggest Liquid as a potential option but acknowledge the challenges of setting it up.
Updated on: 2023-08-11T15:52:54.210385+00:00