The first cryptocurrency, Bitcoin spawned a revolution in finance (see Web3). So, that’s why I think the first step is to get those mechanisms deployed, make them easy to tweak so that we can actually really test this and see how it behaves. So, in the regular multi-hop payment as we use it today, the last hop getting established of the contract also transfers the secret to the recipient so that they can start to pull in the payment, which makes it cascade back to the sender. And even then, if they do jam, it’s no worse than what they could have done if we hadn’t reserved some of the resources for our regular customers in the first place. So, the downside of this approach is that this sort of scheme is open to a long-term attack, where people just build up a reputation and then, at some point, attack and take a lot of resources and jam. So, maybe this is an issue, maybe not, but we’ll have to think about it in more detail. This is a very easy way to solve fast jamming, but the issue is that it has an impact on normal users as well, because if you’re a normal user, you try to make payments, you have a lot of failures before you actually get to the recipient, you will have paid upfront fees for failures that you may think are not your fault, not something you should be paying for
>
So for fast jamming, paying upfront fees all the time, whenever you send an HTLC, even if it’s going to fail, you pay a small fee, a fixed upfront fee. Understanding the Binance platform and its fee structure helps you keep costs down so more of your investment goes into your wallet. Binance charges a 0.10% fee for trading on the platform as well as a 0.50% fee for Instant Buy/Sell, so your actual fee amount will depend on the amount of the trade. If you're just now getting started, it would probably be smart to start off with the top coins, like Bitcoin or Ethereum, to get yourself started, and used to the workflow of trading and moving coins back and forth. It’s always been quite unclear how much priority we should assign to that, because now that we have a protocol that everyone’s implemented and works, when is it going to be worth changing? This is how it was called in 2019 or 2020 when it was first proposed, and this is something we could do easily with onion messages and PTLCs, but it’s less efficient than boomerang or spear. But that comes with the cost of first behaving well for a long time and paying a bunch of fees towards building up the reputa
.
And then we’ll have a better idea of whether anyone can do their own thing and still be protected, or if it’s better that everyone applies the same reputation algorithm to make it work. Again, moved here this is not a reputation system where nodes share reputations between each other and gossip about it, where we have to be worried about someone bad-mouthing another node or anything like that. The accounts system was added in late 2010 to allow an early Bitcoin exchange to manage their user accounts in Bitcoin Core, but it lacked many of the features desirable for true production systems (like atomic database updates) and it often confused users, so removing it gracefully has been a goal for several years. Bastien Teinturier: Yeah, so the current protocol is optimal in terms of latency because both sides can be continuously applying updates. Second, to prove that BLS signatures are secure requires making an additional assumption about part of the scheme being secure that isn’t required for proving the security of Bitcoin’s current scheme (ECDSA) or proposed Schnorr-base
heme.
And they’re going to be tweaked at every hop, which means that even if you have multiple nodes that are on the path of the same payment, it’s not going to be payment hash, you’re going to see a different point, a different secret than in both nodes. But actually, I think that at that point, latency shouldn’t be that much of an issue, but that’s something that we’ll see once we actually have implemented it and have some figures running on the real network. It is encouraging to see continuing research into the problem. So, we would have to do more research on how we actually really want to do redundant overpayment. So, you can point out any output that has sufficient funds to have basically funded that channel; I assume that means enough or more. Mark Erhardt: It also is really nice about - one thing that I really want to point out. So, there’s been a lot of eyeballs on it, so looking forward to that coming out. So, I think that now we have fixed most of these issues, we haven’t seen in the past one or two years any issues related to the implementation of that protocol.