📅 Original date posted:2021-11-15
📝 Original message:
Hi Joost,
A quick way to resolve this is to normalize the payment fees to a [0,1]
scale. Two natural ways to do this are the following.
0 in both of them is some maximum set by the user (maybe with some
reasonable default), 1 could be either the cheapest path or simply 0 sat.
Once we have normalized the fees to a [0,1] scale, we can proceed.
Let [image: \alpha] be the chosen balance parameter, [image: f] the
fee and [image:
p] the success probability. Then the score of a channel will be [image:
\alpha\cdot f + (1-\alpha)\cdot p]
Clara
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:26 AM Joost Jager <joost.jager at gmail.com> wrote:
> In Lightning pathfinding the two main variables to optimize for are
> routing fee and reliability. Routing fee is concrete. It is the sat amount
> that is paid when a payment succeeds. Reliability is a property of a route
> that can be expressed as a probability. The probability that a route will
> be successful.
>
> During pathfinding, route options are compared against each other. So for
> example:
>
> Route A: fee 10 sat, success probability 50%
> Route B: fee 20 sat, success probability 80%
>
> Which one is the better route? That depends on user preference. A patient
> user will probably go for route A in the hope of saving on fees whereas for
> a time-sensitive payment route B looks better.
>
> It would be great to offer this trade-off to the user in a simple way.
> Preferably a single [0, 1] value that controls the selection process. At 0,
> the route is only optimized for fees and probabilities are ignored
> completely. At 1, the route is only optimized for reliability and fees are
> ignored completely.
>
> But how to choose between the routes A and B for a value somewhere in
> between 0 and 1? For example 0.5 - perfect balance between reliability and
> fee. But what does that mean exactly?
>
> Anyone got an idea on how to approach this best? I am looking for a simple
> formula to decide between routes, preferably with a reasonably sound
> probability-theoretical basis (whatever that means).
>
> Joost
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211115/7e7f7ab4/attachment.html>;
Clara Shikhelman [ARCHIVE] /
npub1uy…t9vwk
2023-06-09 13:04:23
in reply to nevent1q…4peq
Author Public Key
npub1uyhgpz5nsfnvdlcqm3erjsdjasd9pdeaejeetwtkvumm6mp3ujlqxt9vwkSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-09 13:04:23Event JSON
{
"id": "139aa63240fd653ab28eda18b0353efaed070b143b13965ef16fc3340d35ad7b",
"pubkey": "e12e808a938266c6ff00dc723941b2ec1a50b73dccb395b9766737bd6c31e4be",
"created_at": 1686315863,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ff2b02f52b6bf2ba44fad040ebd04a11cbcc61fa7b8b2822e2b9132801128989",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1ecff775e8c9fbe5af33351ced8b9344102410dea3e26097d28efd698cb9fb3c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ec3fb08b335b94aace30d13181f2ad0280df9bc34f1a99832c4e2da8fb125eb3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-11-15\n📝 Original message:\nHi Joost,\n\nA quick way to resolve this is to normalize the payment fees to a [0,1]\nscale. Two natural ways to do this are the following.\n0 in both of them is some maximum set by the user (maybe with some\nreasonable default), 1 could be either the cheapest path or simply 0 sat.\nOnce we have normalized the fees to a [0,1] scale, we can proceed.\n\nLet [image: \\alpha] be the chosen balance parameter, [image: f] the\nfee and [image:\np] the success probability. Then the score of a channel will be [image:\n\\alpha\\cdot f + (1-\\alpha)\\cdot p]\n\nClara\n\n\nOn Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:26 AM Joost Jager \u003cjoost.jager at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e In Lightning pathfinding the two main variables to optimize for are\n\u003e routing fee and reliability. Routing fee is concrete. It is the sat amount\n\u003e that is paid when a payment succeeds. Reliability is a property of a route\n\u003e that can be expressed as a probability. The probability that a route will\n\u003e be successful.\n\u003e\n\u003e During pathfinding, route options are compared against each other. So for\n\u003e example:\n\u003e\n\u003e Route A: fee 10 sat, success probability 50%\n\u003e Route B: fee 20 sat, success probability 80%\n\u003e\n\u003e Which one is the better route? That depends on user preference. A patient\n\u003e user will probably go for route A in the hope of saving on fees whereas for\n\u003e a time-sensitive payment route B looks better.\n\u003e\n\u003e It would be great to offer this trade-off to the user in a simple way.\n\u003e Preferably a single [0, 1] value that controls the selection process. At 0,\n\u003e the route is only optimized for fees and probabilities are ignored\n\u003e completely. At 1, the route is only optimized for reliability and fees are\n\u003e ignored completely.\n\u003e\n\u003e But how to choose between the routes A and B for a value somewhere in\n\u003e between 0 and 1? For example 0.5 - perfect balance between reliability and\n\u003e fee. But what does that mean exactly?\n\u003e\n\u003e Anyone got an idea on how to approach this best? I am looking for a simple\n\u003e formula to decide between routes, preferably with a reasonably sound\n\u003e probability-theoretical basis (whatever that means).\n\u003e\n\u003e Joost\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Lightning-dev mailing list\n\u003e Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211115/7e7f7ab4/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "c1ccdf7b7d174b160ab7e3f4920dd6a94f7e9593f400d9d9ff6fa42341829ddd611902c3faf4f6d439913073aebcb55c60a81e53bd1960a7ad1e3351816094c3"
}