Author: Antoine Riard 2023-06-19 01:29:31+00:00
Published on: 2023-06-19T01:29:31+00:00
The discussion revolves around the proposed HTLC endorsement system and its effectiveness in compensating for damage caused by jamming attacks on routing nodes. The main concern raised is whether the fees paid are fully economically compensating the inflicted damage or if there is a proportional compensation based on the ratio between fees and reputation. It is also questioned whether the design goals of the endorsement system, such as having a significant cost to persistent attackers, are clearly outlined.The lack of formalization of the problem and the absence of correctness conditions in the "unjamming lightning" paper are highlighted. The author suggests that a rigorous analysis, similar to modern cryptanalysis, should be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of any jamming solution. Without such analysis, it is difficult to set measurable bounds and determine when a solution may cause more harm than relief to routing node operators.The potential impact of the HTLC endorsement system on link-level liquidity is discussed, with the suggestion that simulations should be conducted to assess how it might downgrade HTLC routing traffic. It is acknowledged that other proposed jamming solutions may also have downsides on routing traffic success, but the specific trade-offs are uncertain.Overall, the author emphasizes the need for caution in deploying half-baked mitigations and highlights the importance of conducting thorough analysis and evaluation before implementing any solution. The discussion ends with a mention of the coupling effect between historical liquidity buckets of routing scoring algorithms and the introduction of the endorsement scheme with adjustments of channel liquidity and slots based on local topology reputation.
Updated on: 2023-07-14T02:50:47.390376+00:00