rich1.0Bugtus wroteBugtus (npub1se…mnhp3)https://yabu.me/npub1sezgmhk40mk5znnqse5jz4mjx40vszz45zwqnf7wyxqvdz0t8wnq9mnhp3njumphttps://yabu.meSomething I’ve been thinking about lately: time-locked liquidity as a spam deterrent.
If those 405 keys had to immobilize even a trivial amount of sats (e.g. 500 sats) for each of those 7M events, the spammer would likely hit a liquidity wall quickly. This could be done with a Privacy Pass like mechanism that makes the liquidity lock unlinkable to the individual events.
Legit users incur near-zero net cost (funds are returned after the lock), while attackers are forced to immobilize capital proportional to spam throughput. Relays could also surge lock amount under load.
Would absolutely love to hear your thoughts on whether "locked liquidity" could be a useful for spam deterrence.
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzppjy3h0d2lhdg98xppnfy9thyd27eqy9tgyupxnuugvqc6y7kwaxqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uqjqamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wv45kuatwv3a8wctw0f5kwtnnwpskxef0qqsdkvm4pv5694lfpn8e9zgr4w566hkra9mgk9xl4we4phgffuku56gv66js9