Author: Antoine Riard 2023-05-31 16:38:08
Published on: 2023-05-31T16:38:08+00:00
The conversation discusses the importance of differentiating between fees charged by a node and their reputation revenue in the HTLC endorsement model. The example used involves Caroll and Bob, who share the same parameters and have reputation revenue made from multiple incoming links. For each HTLC forwarding request issued from Alice, Bob has to decide between refusing Alice HTLC forward over the Caroll incoming link and losing an opportunity of fee income or accepting the HTLC and suffering damage if Alice reveals as a jamming attacker. The compensation mechanism in the chain of nodes with high reputation is unclear, and the HTLC endorsement mitigation suffers from the classic issues of reputation systems. The lack of transitivity of the reputation acquisition cost raises vulnerability issues for the endorsement scheme, where there is nothing preventing Alice from sacrificing her earned reputation to inflict a loss of routing fees damage on Caroll's incoming link. Reputation revenue is used to estimate the damage an attacker can create. If there is a chain of nodes that have high reputation with each other and they are jammed, they would be compensated for the revenue lost during the attack. The dynamic reputation windows on payment reliability may break the historical liquidity buckets of routing scoring algorithms in sudden changes based on HTLC resolution.
Updated on: 2023-06-03T12:56:02.372032+00:00