rich1.0lisa neigut [ARCHIVE] (npub1sp…s64t2)https://yabu.me/npub1sprhp66c693av0c0n9had046hcdcckp2th25fnmphwstc5e4wg9qxs64t2njumphttps://yabu.me📅 Original date posted:2019-11-07 📝 Original message: > Imagine the following setup: a network of nodes that trust each other The goal of this pre-payment proposal is to remove the need for trusted parties. On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 07:38 Joost Jager <joost.jager at gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20191107/70d3266f/attachment.html>