Fee-Based Spam Prevention For Lightning

The inquiry seeks clarification and further insights on two specific aspects of a proposed solution to mitigate jamming attacks within a network. The first point of discussion revolves around the suggestion that for each channel with a capacity of a certain amount of sats, an equivalent amount should also be locked as collateral. This approach aims to protect against potential jamming attacks. The person is keen on understanding the financial implications of such a strategy, specifically questioning the opportunity cost associated with locking up these funds.

The second aspect touches on the mechanism of channel closure and the subsequent distribution of the extra funds locked as collateral. The underlying concern here is about the mutual agreement required between parties to close a channel and distribute the funds. The question raised points towards the complexity of human behavior in such scenarios, hinting at how outcomes in the real world might significantly deviate from theoretical expectations. To illustrate these dynamics more clearly, the person suggests the utility of a numerical example that would explore various waiting times, aiming to provide a deeper understanding of the tradeoffs involved. This approach is indicative of an interest in applying theoretical models to practical scenarios, taking into consideration the unpredictable nature of human decisions and their impact on the efficiency and security of network operations.