š
Original date posted:2018-01-02
š Original message:
What you are saying makes perfect sense for the short term.
What I am talking about could promote a big picture healthier network
long term by discouraging "super nodes" in the network from existing, if
you avoid making connections to nodes that have large channel capacities
with other parties.
Does this make sense?
Andy Schroder
On 01/01/2018 12:47 PM, Christian Decker wrote:
> 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
>
Andy Schroder [ARCHIVE] /
npub1r3ā¦n6ccq
2023-06-09 12:48:19
in reply to nevent1qā¦g0st
Author Public Key
npub1r375vdaydp5nnnytff6ee2kwzxak8whmwkmnkm6h67agr7dadfkqxn6ccqPublished at
2023-06-09 12:48:19Event JSON
{
"id": "d5d93107ae94d8a9842b411bae1753f345286b7bd124e301127c04a353111b75",
"pubkey": "1c7d4637a4686939cc8b4a759caace11bb63bafb75b73b6f57d7ba81f9bd6a6c",
"created_at": 1686314899,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c3be1db8263e66ee649d65e8c7919258d51350509bbff4385734c67e84754a40",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7cce4d53bd33ee74724976874e3503bf3ca90f0a7f53b5838f00452434a2f902",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"72cd40332ec782dd0a7f63acb03e3b6fdafa6d91bd1b6125cd8b7117a1bb8057"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2018-01-02\nš Original message:\nWhat you are saying makes perfect sense for the short term.\n\nWhat I am talking about could promote a big picture healthier network \nlong term by discouraging \"super nodes\" in the network from existing, if \nyou avoid making connections to nodes that have large channel capacities \nwith other parties.\n\nDoes this make sense?\n\nAndy Schroder\n\nOn 01/01/2018 12:47 PM, Christian Decker wrote:\n\u003e Andy Schroder \u003cinfo at AndySchroder.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e\u003e I understand that you have to be in agreement with your direct peers. So\n\u003e\u003e you don't really care about what agreements others in your route may\n\u003e\u003e have in place? I would think that you would choose not to route through\n\u003e\u003e hops that violate your capacity limit.\n\u003e I'm failing to see why I'd care about a remote channel's capacity, aside\n\u003e from it being large enough to cover the amount I want to transfer. As a\n\u003e participant routing through a channel that has a higher capacity I do\n\u003e not incur any additional risk than from a smaller channel, since the\n\u003e payment is guaranteed to be atomic. In the contrary one could argue that\n\u003e a higher capacity channel has a higher probability of having sufficient\n\u003e capacity in the desired direction to forward my transfer.\n\u003e\n\u003e Maybe I'm failing to see something? I always interpreted the limit as\n\u003e purely self-defense on how much value I'm confident enough to keep in a\n\u003e channel.\n\u003e\n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e Christian\n\u003e",
"sig": "94f4c9938262fbc1a54339020bdc76516b2c87c4ff6aca006b5a9f7dc44fb19e246f3a957adb72cdf5871da27c35ea32957e82fe878857dd85696cdb531e540c"
}