Content | Time (min) |
---|---|
Lightning is broken | 60 |
Lightning Network 2.0 (starting at Lightning Problem 1: Liquidity) | 30 |
Lightning Limitations | 45 |
The price of anarchy | 30 |
What Are Anchor Outputs? | 25 |
Spamming the Lightning Network | 40 |
Limitations of lightweight clients | 25 |
Fee Management | 30 |
Incentive problems in the network | 45 |
Routing Failures | 30 |
Griefing attacks | 15 |
Lightning Attack Vectors | 40 |
Pinning Attacks | 50 |
Solutions to inbound capacity problem in Lightning Network | 20 |
Unjamming Lightning | 25 |
(optional) Jamming Book | 30 |
- What are the incentives around on-chain fees for the funding tx? Does the fundee care if the funder submits a funding tx with very low fee?
- What is the danger of being able to associate a base layer bitcoin node with the owner’s lightning node?
- What problem do anchor outputs resolve? Why don't they solve the pinning problem?
- Can including fees in channel transactions be abused by attackers? How do anchors seek to fix this?
- What variables other than
htlc_minimum_msat
andmax_accepted_htlcs
could be tweaked to make it harder or less attractive for an attacker to try and lock up a channel? - Can we differentiate between the useful messages like error and trial path finding versus spam like probes?
- As a service, why is it easier to send funds than receive them?
- Why would the fundee care about the size the fees if it’s a funder that’s paying the fees?
- If you disagree about the fees with your peer, how do you negotiate them?
- What kind of info would be relevant for doing local reputation tracking?
- How would having bidirectional fees for payments affect overall routing incentives?
- What challenges exist for making routing table synchronization efficient?
- What's to prevent an attacker from temporarily drying up network liquidity by sending himself payments using really long routes without completing the payments?
- If a channel is being closed unilaterally, and the commitment tx has a low fee, can one of the parties bump the fees with CPFP (spend their output with a high fee)? If not, why not?
- What are the effects of upfront fees for HTLC on malicious probing and "honest" probing?
- Is randomly denying a percentage of payment requests an effective countermeasure to the balance probing attack? Outside of the potential loss of routing fees, are there any other downsides?
- Another countermeasure was to remove error messages when a route fails. Besides having less clarity as to why a path failed when trying to find a route for a payment, are there any other reasons to include these error messages?