((This message was originally sent only to ZmnSCPxj and not to the mail list due to a mistake))
Hi, ZmnSCPxj > The major difference here is that for PoW, it is impossible to create a "sybil > attack" where you only need to spin up multiple nodes on AWS containers, each > with its own identity. > For PoW, every such node requires its own continuous hashpower; on Lightning, > each such node can be generated by simply incrementing a 256-bit number. > > Thus, the honest majority assumption can **only** be relied on if you have > ***some*** sybil-resistance. > PoW *is* the sybil-resistance that Bitcoin uses. In fact, that is the exact opposite: in Bitcoin blockchain, you have a permissionless P2P layer, where both miners and users are pseudonymous and come from an open unknown set of participants. However, in the case of Lightning channel (including Nucleus), no external participant can stick in liquidity: this is a fully permissioned system, which requires 100% of participants to agree on the inclusion of a new participant. Thus, the protection from Sybil attack is much higher and can be based on mechanisms of reputation etc. - that is what I was pointing out in my reply to David Harding. > In short: you can only reason "I think, therefore I am", but you cannot from > there derive that others exist; you MUST assume that there are only two > entities: yourself, and the rest of the universe. In the case of Bitcoin - yes. In the case of Lightning channels - you always authorise each other participant. Kind regards, me
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
