rich1.0Joost Jager [ARCHIVE] (npub1as…wfqmx)https://yabu.me/npub1aslmpzentw224n3s6yccru4dq2qdlx7rfudfnqevfck637cjt6esswfqmxnjumphttps://yabu.me📅 Original date posted:2019-11-07 📝 Original message: > > > Isn't spam something that can also be addressed by using rate limits for > > failures? If all relevant nodes on the network employ rate limits, they > can > > isolate the spammer and diminish their disruptive abilities. > > Sure, once the spammer has jammed up the network, he'll be stopped. So > will everyone else. Conner had a proposal like this which didn't work, > IIRC. > Do you have ref to this proposal? Imagine the following setup: a network of nodes that trust each other (as far as spam is concerned) applies a 100 htlc/sec rate limit to the channels between themselves. Channels to untrusted nodes get a rate of only 1 htlc/sec. Assuming the spammer isn't a trusted node, they can only spam at 1 htlc/s and won't jam up the network? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20191107/f34b9e63/attachment.html>