Author: Clara Shikhelman 2023-06-20 21:10:23+00:00
Published on: 2023-06-20T21:10:23+00:00
The discussion revolves around the issue of compensating routing nodes for the damage caused by jamming attacks in the lightning network. The concern is whether the fees paid to routing nodes fully compensate the damage inflicted on the victim or if the compensation is proportional. The difficulty to gain reputation is mentioned as being proportional to the amount of damage that can be inflicted.There is a question about the design goals of the proposed htlc endorsement system and whether outlawing the cost of the attack contradicts the goal of imposing a significant cost on persistent attackers. It is noted that the "unjamming lightning" paper does not provide a formal definition of the problem or the correctness conditions required for a solution.The author emphasizes the need for a rigorous analysis of the liquidity griefing issues affecting Lightning and second-layers, including jamming attacks. Comparisons are made to modern cryptanalysis, where measurable bounds and conceptual rigor are crucial. Without such analysis, it may be difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of any solution or determine when there is a failure due to modifying parameters like channel opening default.Due to the soft criteria involved (UX, ease of implementation), theorems cannot be proven. However, simulations are being conducted to assess the impact of htlc endorsement on link-level liquidity and HTLC routing traffic. The difficulty of mitigating DDoS attacks is acknowledged, and the team is doing their best within the context of the lightning network using available tools.In conclusion, the discussion highlights the need for a comprehensive analysis of the compensation system, formal problem definition, and rigorous evaluation of any proposed solutions. Simulations are being run to assess the potential impact of htlc endorsement on link-level liquidity and traffic.
Updated on: 2023-07-14T02:51:00.166310+00:00