📅 Original date posted:2018-01-01
📝 Original message:
Andy Schroder <info at AndySchroder.com> writes:
> I understand that you have to be in agreement with your direct peers. So
> you don't really care about what agreements others in your route may
> have in place? I would think that you would choose not to route through
> hops that violate your capacity limit.
I'm failing to see why I'd care about a remote channel's capacity, aside
from it being large enough to cover the amount I want to transfer. As a
participant routing through a channel that has a higher capacity I do
not incur any additional risk than from a smaller channel, since the
payment is guaranteed to be atomic. In the contrary one could argue that
a higher capacity channel has a higher probability of having sufficient
capacity in the desired direction to forward my transfer.
Maybe I'm failing to see something? I always interpreted the limit as
purely self-defense on how much value I'm confident enough to keep in a
channel.
Cheers,
Christian
Christian Decker [ARCHIVE] /
npub1wt…gtuyn
2023-06-09 12:48:18
in reply to nevent1q…qche
Author Public Key
npub1wtx5qvewc7pd6znlvwktq03mdld05mv3h5dkzfwd3dc30gdmsptsugtuynPublished at
2023-06-09 12:48:18Event JSON
{
"id": "7cce4d53bd33ee74724976874e3503bf3ca90f0a7f53b5838f00452434a2f902",
"pubkey": "72cd40332ec782dd0a7f63acb03e3b6fdafa6d91bd1b6125cd8b7117a1bb8057",
"created_at": 1686314898,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c3be1db8263e66ee649d65e8c7919258d51350509bbff4385734c67e84754a40",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b73ff5f3f3dff1c1c509908701d095e32eddbd941220b91ffec5f6a4acc6921b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-01-01\n📝 Original message:\nAndy Schroder \u003cinfo at AndySchroder.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e I understand that you have to be in agreement with your direct peers. So \n\u003e you don't really care about what agreements others in your route may \n\u003e have in place? I would think that you would choose not to route through \n\u003e hops that violate your capacity limit.\n\nI'm failing to see why I'd care about a remote channel's capacity, aside\nfrom it being large enough to cover the amount I want to transfer. As a\nparticipant routing through a channel that has a higher capacity I do\nnot incur any additional risk than from a smaller channel, since the\npayment is guaranteed to be atomic. In the contrary one could argue that\na higher capacity channel has a higher probability of having sufficient\ncapacity in the desired direction to forward my transfer.\n\nMaybe I'm failing to see something? I always interpreted the limit as\npurely self-defense on how much value I'm confident enough to keep in a\nchannel.\n\nCheers,\nChristian",
"sig": "73d414c7fd7ded720662cafa0276e52f9bef2f7d818b246bf7354cae4d536d4c9afc24fa767fb6e74d7d732a5d858b13feff8ae58ed3038e7805b5cfad884ca3"
}