pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @DarthCoin 19 Oct 2024 \ parent \ on: Questions about Nov 5th: How does the new format work? AskSN
dust limit
Doesn't lightning help mitigate this?
There are not only sats but in Lightning...
Millisats?
reply
- https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-October/003257.html
- https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-April/003009.html
- https://blog.bitmex.com/preventing-channel-jamming/
- https://mailing-list.bitcoindevs.xyz/bitcoindev/a647a2e2-2742-4b0e-ae84-6f84b018136fn@googlegroups.com/T/#u#md98692398d3858c104cbee92637b05fecabc89f8
Hopefully with the new Bitcoin Core 28 we will have some fixes
https://bitcoinops.org/en/bitcoin-core-28-wallet-integration-guide/
After a sufficient number of nodes upgrade on the network, the LN protocol may be updated to drop the “update_fee” message, which has been a source of unnecessary force closes during fee spikes for years now. With removal of this protocol message, commitment transactions could be set to a static 1 sat/vbyte feerate. With TRUC transactions, we can ensure that competing commitment transactions with anchor spends are allowed to RBF each other over the network, and if there are competing output spends from the same commitment transaction, that RBF can occur no matter which output is being spent. TRUC transactions are also allowed to be 0-fee, allowing reduction in spec complexity. With TRUC’s sibling eviction, we can also drop the 1 block CSV locktimes, since we are no longer overly concerned with what unconfirmed outputs are being spent, as long as each party can spend a single output themselves
reply
THANK YOU.
I will get around to updating to the new Bitcoin Core version when I have time.
reply
Even if you have 1 sat HTLCs that doesn't mean is not dust.
Only that is not financially worth it to steal it with a force close channel.
Users think that LN is something magic that works out of any chain, but in fact all LN payments are onchain transactions, only that are not broadcast yet.
I could easily have a dust attack on your node attached to SN account, sending hundreds of 1 sat zaps until your node will collapse with so many pending HTLCs of 1 sat.
Then I force close the channel and your node is fucked. yes that could cost me a lot, but is doable.
That's why is kind of stupid to zap 1 sat or even under dust limit in a p2p mode.
reply
This is really interesting.
There's a lot to unpack here. I have never 'attached my wallet' to Stacker News. Instead I use an LN address.
Would this attack still work? If not... OK. However what about for all the other Stackers? How do we mitigate this attack? Mitigate it in the wild?
Also it seems you are implying it would be expensive both for 'the attacker' and the one 'being attacked'. Do I have that right?
reply
Yes for such thing you need to allocate resource and the result is just to fuck up the peer victim node.
But there are enough crazy people around capable to do such thing.
Instead I use an LN address.
And where is going that LN address? Not to a LN node? Is it your node or somebody else's node?
reply
I'm not sure I understand. There are a lot of big public nodes out there. For example run by exchanges (Kraken, Coinbase, Acinq etc)
Someone can attack their node by sending them 1 sat over and over and over then force-closing?
?
reply