Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-06-29 📝 Original message: Olaoluwa Osuntokun ...

📅 Original date posted:2022-06-29
📝 Original message:
Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32 at gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Rusty,
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
>> This is over-design: if you fail to get reliable gossip, your routing will
>> suffer anyway. Nothing new here.
>
> Idk, it's pretty simple: you're already watching for closes, so if a close
> looks a certain way, it's a splice. When you see that, you can even take
> note of the _new_ channel size (funds added/removed) and update your
> pathfinding/blindedpaths/hophints accordingly.

Why spam the chain?

> If this is an over-designed solution, that I'd categorize _only_ waiting N
> blocks as wishful thinking, given we have effectively no guarantees w.r.t
> how long it'll take a message to propagate.

Sure, it's a simplification on "wait 6 blocks plus 30 minutes".

> If by routing you mean a sender, then imo still no: you don't necessarily
> need _all_ gossip, just the latest policies of the nodes you route most
> frequently to. On top of that, since you can get the latest policy each time
> you incur a routing failure, as you make payments, you'll get the latest
> policies of the nodes you care about over time. Also consider that you might
> fail to get "reliable" gossip, simply just due to your peer neighborhood
> aggressively rate limiting gossip (they only allow 1 update a day for a
> node, you updated your fee, oops, no splice msg for you).

There's no ratelimiting on new channel announcements?

> So it appears you don't agree that the "wait N blocks before you close your
> channels" isn't a fool proof solution? Why 12 blocks, why not 15? Or 144?

Because it's simple.

>>From my PoV, the whole point of even signalling that a splice is on going,
> is for the sender's/receivers: they can continue to send/recv payments over
> the channel while the splice is in process. It isn't that a node isn't
> getting any gossip, it's that if the node fails to obtain the gossip message
> within the N block period of time, then the channel has effectively closed
> from their PoV, and it may be an hour+ until it's seen as a usable (new)
> channel again.

Sure. If you want to not forget channels at all on close, that works too.

> If there isn't a 100% reliable way to signal that a splice is in progress,
> then this disincentives its usage, as routers can lose out on potential fee
> revenue, and sends/receivers may grow to favor only very long lived
> channels. IMO _only_ having a gossip message simply isn't enough: there're
> no real guarantees w.r.t _when_ all relevant parties will get your gossip
> message. So why not give them a 100% reliable on chain signal that:
> something is in progress here, stay tuned for the gossip message, whenever
> you receive that.

That's not 100% reliable at all. How long to you want for the new
gossip?

Just treat every close as signalling "stay tuned for the gossip
message". That's reliable. And simple.

Cheers,
Rusty.