ASB: DOS resiliance

[Einliterflasche]

The asb needs to be made more resilient to DOS attacks, since there is an economic incentive to block other people from operating an asb.

Beyond tweaking parameters and other low hanging fruit this will ultimately require some form of incurring cost on attackers. The classic example is requiring POW before any connection is accepted. #910 implements that (currently a prototype).
Apart from a basic POW requirement we can also gate more expensive protocols behind another layer of POW, with the difficulty chosen based on the cost of the protocol.
In some protocols we might be able to restructure/reorder the protocol to further deter DOS attacks.

[Franz-Hermann-GT]

This is a very serious issue and should be a top priority, as it effectively prevents all honest makers from operating and allows the attacker to dominate pricing without competition.

[pokefan77]

as a client i must comment on this: the pricing doesnt seem to have changed over the last months, todays price seems to show 2.24% and even more liquidity than before the hardforkv4
there seems to be multiple makers online too, another with 1 btc at 3%

[Franz-Hermann-GT]

As a long-time client, my understanding is that before these attacks, liquidity was higher and spreads were typically around 1.5% or even lower.
Since around November, makers seem to have been under continuous attack, which is also why the v4 hardfork happened.
Based on what I’ve read on other forums, these DoS attacks tend to hit makers who operate at lower spreads, making them effectively unavailable for takers.
Compared to the earlier market, we are now paying almost double, and I suspect many users may have already moved to alternative solutions because of this.
So in my view, this issue should be treated as a top priority.

[pokefan77]

"liquidity was higher and spreads were typically around 1.5%"
that is simply not true at all
and you were recently also still be able to see this on the eigenwallet website before they changed it. maybe the team has the data archived.
the liquidity actually went up since iirc around november with around 10-20 btc available and around 2.5%

before that,
the only big liquidity before the timeframe you mentioned was maker named xmrprivate.xyz who was operating at 2.7-3.50% and he was only offering around 2-3 btc

right now there is 2 makers online
9 btc @ 2.33
1 btc @ 3.02

more liquidity at less price

on other decentralized offerbooks there is and was also never was big liquidity at 1.5%, its a highly unrealistic target
you can just go to any exchange aggregator like orangefren or trocador to see that there is even lots of KYC instant swappers asking for 2-4% rate
KYC!
that means a good portion of their money comes from stealing peoples money in the name of "KYC"

anyways its besides the actual github issue so we should end this nonsense discussion here. its just that your comments regarding the numbers are fairytales
suffice to say that the market for takers seems fair and unchanged.

[Franz-Hermann-GT]

I think the issue isn’t the current snapshot of spreads, but whether makers can reliably operate at lower spreads without being disrupted. Otherwise the market becomes structurally distorted, which is what this GitHub issue is about.

[binarybaron]

I think the issue isn’t the current snapshot of spreads, but whether makers can reliably operate at lower spreads without being disrupted. Otherwise the market becomes structurally distorted, which is what this GitHub issue is about.

You are totally correct.

Please refrain from any speculation about the impact on the market for now. It is clear that this is important to fix. There is nothing to discuss here besides technical issues.