Author: Clara Shikhelman 2022-11-07 18:22:40
Published on: 2022-11-07T18:22:40+00:00
The email response from the sender is in response to Antoine's detailed email on the framework for mitigation evaluation. The sender discusses additional dimensions that could be relevant to integrate such as centralization, protocol evolvability, and ecosystem impacts. The effectiveness evaluation from the attacker's viewpoint and the victim's point of view is also discussed. There is a discussion about assigning blame to the sender and research on this topic is considered. The sender addresses the problem with proof of burn or PoW and further research required on assigning blame to the sender. Lastly, the email discusses the conceptual issue with the chaining of unconditional fee and local reputation and how it relates to the upper bound of honest payment resolution delay. The overall tone of the email suggests a thoughtful consideration of different aspects of the framework and its potential limitations. In terms of HTLC forward, the strategy regime used for evaluation depends on future event knowledge. Reputation is used as part of a continuous game and evaluated based on the continuous behavior of the node, rather than based on one HTLC. Additionally, the unconditional fee is always charged.
Updated on: 2023-06-03T10:33:43.165080+00:00