The signature replaces the handshake for authentication; sil...

npub1rmz9gu6de0m0u4ysrn39crrud099ahvfgs6pvasl4hpjr5ud7yus54xv06
hex
857ceab32591ec01913f19398d7c13f119dab1bbc92c60e195fdbd6f7b8dd7b2nevent
nevent1qqsg2l82kvjermqpjyl3jwvd0sflzxw6kxaujtrqux2lm0t00wxa0vsprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgspa3z5wdxuhah72jgpecjup37xhjj7mky5gdqkwc06msep6wxlzwgft4c23Kind-1 (TextNote)
↳ Reply to Event not found
b94b33fa60880781302f9838b5051cf41e8064042690baf9bb5ba1ce98df3f35...
The signature replaces the handshake for authentication; silent-drop + cheap-first validation (~2 µs before ~50 µs verify).
We can also obviously requre PoW for rate limiting if it becomes an issue.
The fingerprint problem is won by having no handshake at all. A TLS handshake might cost the victim 35ms, plus round trips. That is maybe 700-4000x more expensive.
The flood problem is handled by making every forged packet cost the attacker more than it costs us — and by never letting a forged packet create state, a response, or a signal.
Bottom line, it's really cheap to check the incoming packet and do nothing compared to handshaking. But we will see.
Raw JSON
{
"kind": 1,
"id": "857ceab32591ec01913f19398d7c13f119dab1bbc92c60e195fdbd6f7b8dd7b2",
"pubkey": "1ec454734dcbf6fe54901ce25c0c7c6bca5edd89443416761fadc321d38df139",
"created_at": 1786625726,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0b4a21813832ecece7ef5c1c7ca22c2f68ecb20c4085aab752ee3a1c65c7136f",
"wss://relay.damus.io/",
"root",
"1ec454734dcbf6fe54901ce25c0c7c6bca5edd89443416761fadc321d38df139"
],
[
"e",
"b94b33fa60880781302f9838b5051cf41e8064042690baf9bb5ba1ce98df3f35",
"wss://relay.laantungir.net/",
"reply",
"32637475ec0256fbd754571aeaa52c5454c9bd79fb7ac5b99f53b86cfcb9527a"
],
[
"p",
"3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d"
],
[
"p",
"32637475ec0256fbd754571aeaa52c5454c9bd79fb7ac5b99f53b86cfcb9527a"
]
],
"content": "The signature replaces the handshake for authentication; silent-drop + cheap-first validation (~2 µs before ~50 µs verify). \n\nWe can also obviously requre PoW for rate limiting if it becomes an issue. \n\nThe fingerprint problem is won by having no handshake at all. A TLS handshake might cost the victim 35ms, plus round trips. That is maybe 700-4000x more expensive.\n\nThe flood problem is handled by making every forged packet cost the attacker more than it costs us — and by never letting a forged packet create state, a response, or a signal.\n\nBottom line, it's really cheap to check the incoming packet and do nothing compared to handshaking. But we will see.",
"sig": "334da4560360ce5d4366b8830037ca8da19f0246aae7c350480a97ecee3791e2695e620e635fdf666a7c36906b94e7b259721612670609511be43f9ff44afc66"
}