Hi Antoine, Thanks for your input.
The first item is there because we agreed to start where we left off at the end of the last meeting. About your comments on the other items – I think they are very interesting, but you should probably write them in the relevant thread. Let's keep this for meeting housekeeping. I agree about a repository, will do this soon. As for the frequency, the next one will be in a month because of the holidays. I like the biweekly because things stay fresh. Of course, there is no need for everyone to attend, we'll start publishing a summary for those who can't. If you would like to write a transcript, it would be very useful and much appreciated. Best, Clara On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 10:31 PM Antoine Riard <antoine.ri...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Clara, > > Thanks for rolling the ball forward. > > On the agenda, a few more thoughts. > > > 1. Which parameters should be considered in reputation-based solutions? > > I think before thinking about the parameters of reputation-based > solutions, we should discuss the security goal we're aiming to achieve with > any potential jamming solutions. Browsing the solution space some have > aimed to increase the opportunity cost for the attacker (e.g liquidity > slots), some to reduce the jamming intensity (e.g circuit breakers), some > inflicting a on-chain fee damage cost back to the adversary (e.g stake > certificates), some to achieve economic hedge of the routing hops (e.g > unconditional > fees, reputation credentials). As of today, I would say a security goal > designed in the term of a monetary strategy could be more acceptable to the > routing hops node operators. Beyond that, I believe there is capturing this > design goal in a "measurable" notion, such as the unjamming lightning > paper's breakeven point, and see how we can enrich this "measurable" notion. > > > 2. Circuitbreaker [1] > > While reviewing the circuitbreaker last week, I started to wonder if there > wasn't another "hidden" issue while solving channel jamming, namely > congestion control of the HTLC flows. A node operator is not only > interested that any liquidity unit allocated for a HTLC forward is paid > back with routing fees, but also in case of more forward demand than > liquidity offer, ready to process it (potentially by deferring and sending > backpressure messages to the HTLC sender). I don't know, though I think > that can be an interesting point to discuss. > > > 3. Onion relay network [2] and its potential uses. > > Onion relay network rate-limits have been discussed earlier this year, > with a probabilistic backpressure scheme proposed. If the onion relay > traffic starts to have economically-weighable traffic (offers, credentials > tokens, etc), there could be a risk of onion-jamming. For the bootstrap of > the onion relay network, I believe this could be solved by leveraging more > the channel-network topology for the design of a solution. We could re-use > the evaluation framework from the unjamming lightning paper, I guess. > > In the meeting, I think it could be very valuable if we have reliable > transcripts and if we start to maintain a community repository, where we > can pin the issues, problems and ideas. > > On the frequency of the meeting, note some Lightning developers raised the > concern that biweekly might be too much: > https://gnusha.org/lightning-dev/2022-11-23.log (once a month could work > well too, if we have a sound agenda). > > Best, > Antoine > > Le jeu. 8 déc. 2022 à 11:08, Clara Shikhelman <clara.shikhel...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > >> Hi all, >> >> The agenda for next week's meeting (Monday the 12th, 7 pm UTC) is the >> following: >> >> 1. Which parameters should be considered in reputation-based solutions? >> 2. Circuitbreaker [1] >> 3. Onion relay network [2] and its potential uses. >> >> The link to the call: https://meet.jit.si/UnjammingLN >> >> See you there, >> Clara >> >> [1] >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2022-December/003781.html >> [2] >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2022-December/003780.html >> >> On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 9:48 PM Clara Shikhelman < >> clara.shikhel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> In light of recent conversations ([1],[2]), the agenda for the call >>> tomorrow (Monday the 28th, 7 pm UTC) is roughly the following: >>> >>> 1. Overview of solutions under discussion >>> 2. Reputation (local/tokens) >>> 3. Fees >>> >>> This is the link to the call: https://meet.jit.si/UnjammingLN >>> >>> See you there, >>> Clara >>> >>> [1] >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2022-November/003740.html >>> [2] >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2022-November/003754.html >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lightning-dev mailing list >>> Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lightning-dev mailing list >> Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >> >
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
