pull down to refresh
Attack 1. Bad guys maneuver themselves into key positions in LN and then suddenly turn off their nodes. Result: LN will experience problems for a short time until somebody opens new channels to fix the problem. Also it's not like maneuvering into key positions is an easy feat to accomplish.
Attack 2: Bad guys open a $100 channel, pay $100 to their other node but then close the $100 channel pretending that they never paid the $100. Watchtowers must slash the bad guys. The point of the paper is that if the bad guys do this a lot and if the watchtowers are not ready to pay higher fees then some stupid watchtowers might fail to slash before the deadline. This raises 2 questions:
- why is the window to slash is currently just 3 days? it should be about 2 weeks at least
- why the watchtowers are not prepared to pay a higher fee if they're about to lose $100?
1000 sats for Anita!
and 1000 sats for SN pool, just to start well this morning.
I learned this from my grandfather: start your day with giving something, no matter the amount, the gesture or the item, but give something without requesting anything in return.
Your day will be a good day.
I feel like I’m in the minority, but I value people sourcing high quality links. Starting a discussion around them is more valuable but nothing is preventing that, so I’m not sure what is being proposed.
Do we want to require people have commentary on something they share? How do we enforce their commentary is coherent? Voting? Isn’t that what we already do absent the requirement?
This feels mostly like an education thing rather than a law we should have. If we want the discussion we should start one or encourage the OP to start one … otherwise they’re already punished by you all not zapping it.
So questions …
Is adding another form field to the link post going solve this behavior?
Is the lack of this field what is actually preventing commentary or might it be something else?