{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpx","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpx","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2020-10-13\n📝 Original message:\nJoost Jager \u003cjoost.jager at gmail.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e This hold fee could be: lock_time * (fee_base + fee_rate * htlc_value).\n\u003e fee_base is in there to compensate for the usage of an htlc slot, which is\n\u003e a scarce resource too.\n\n...\n\u003e \n\u003e In both cases the sender needs to trust its peer to not steal the payment\n\u003e and/or artificially delay the forwarding to inflate the hold fee. I think\n\u003e that is acceptable given that there is a trust relation between peers\n\u003e already anyway.\n\u003e\n\u003e A crucial thing is that these hold fees don't need to be symmetric. A new\n\u003e node for example that opens a channel to a well-known, established routing\n\u003e node will be forced to pay a hold fee, but won't see any traffic coming in\n\u003e anymore if it announces a hold fee itself. Nodes will need to build a\n\u003e reputation before they're able to command hold fees. Similarly, routing\n\u003e nodes that have a strong relation may decide to not charge hold fees to\n\u003e each other at all.\n\nI can still establish channels to various low-reputation nodes, and then\nuse them to grief a high-reputation node.  Not only do I get to jam up\nthe high-reputation channels, as a bonus I get the low-reputation nodes\nto pay for it!\n\nOperators of high reputation nodes can even make this profitable; doubly\nso, since they eliminate the chance of any of those low-reputation nodes\nevery getting to be high reputation (and thus competing).\n\nAFAICT any scheme which penalizes the direct peer creates a bias against\nforwarding unknown payments, thus is deanonymizing.\n\n\u003e I'd also like to encourage everyone to prioritize this spam/jam issue and\n\u003e dedicate more time to solving it. Obviously there is a lot more to do in\n\u003e Lightning, but I am not sure if we can afford to wait for the real\n\u003e adversaries to show up on this one.\n\nAgreed.  It's a classic \"it's not actually on fire *right now*\" problem,\nso it does keep getting pushed back.\n\nCheers,\nRusty."}