📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10
📝 Original message:Hi Hector,
On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 09:48:41PM +0100, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Is the Lightning system limited in the number of hops there can be in
> the payment channel? I am looking at the initial Lightning slides
> presented in February and it looks like the locktime decrements by
> 1-day along each hop. So the more hops there are the longer my
> bitcoins are potentially locked up for?
The hops are limited to the time-value which the sender wishes to pay
and the minimum acceptable timeout between each hop. It should be
relatively cheap if you game it out, though (I don't forsee me opening a
1 BTC channel and being able to make $5 per month...)
1-day is used as a convenience. However, the time between hops should be
somewhat long, as the intermediate steps can be extended further when
you want to offload the HTLCs to others who have a channel open with
both counterparties. E.g. Alice sends a payment to Dave through Bob and
Carol. Bob has a channel with Carol and has an HTLC with it, but that
channel seems to be used a lot. Erin has a relationship to both Bob and
Carol, she can offload the payment so that the payment actually goes to
A->B->E->C->D. B<->C is now completely clear.
> > On Aug 9, 2015 1:15 PM, "Hector Chu" <hectorchu at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In the Lightning network it is assumed that the balances can always
> >> be settled on the blockchain if any of the parties along the
> >> channel has a problem. What if the fee on the settlement
> >> transactions is not high enough to enter the blockchain? You can't
> >> do replace-by-fee after the fact. Do the fees always have to assume
> >> worst case scenarios on the Bitcoin fee market?
How do you send coins if you wanted to send funds below the current
IsStandard value? It should be no different. If your wallet can't send
funds below the IsStandard value on-chain today, then I don't think it
should be able to to in the future, right? If you send funds *at* the
minimum IsStandard value today, you're probably paying really high fees,
this is a problem that exists today.
--
Joseph Poon
Joseph Poon [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ej…p9cq8
2023-06-07 15:45:23
in reply to nevent1q…ls9v
Author Public Key
npub1ej6vep7y2km5l6awukffelg8yeppkth2vjkjk9jypd5w336rxggs3p9cq8Published at
2023-06-07 15:45:23Event JSON
{
"id": "3d21dd4439efbcbb9f9ad25ca5d6ab02cb655a95187883dba308067b549cce1d",
"pubkey": "ccb4cc87c455b74febaee5929cfd0726421b2eea64ad2b16440b68e8c7433211",
"created_at": 1686152723,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6694b179d616199569dd5736f93c40a4efdd5385f12cb8506ca3793769329b78",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e7cefae2db4405bc2289bea759327900c8d24bc518e9f7072a07e0f25129a924",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f3e056e548ecd779cfbea56b1bf9eb9c26afb3780523aa0df2e58f34f4b1faee"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10\n📝 Original message:Hi Hector,\n\nOn Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 09:48:41PM +0100, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Is the Lightning system limited in the number of hops there can be in\n\u003e the payment channel? I am looking at the initial Lightning slides\n\u003e presented in February and it looks like the locktime decrements by\n\u003e 1-day along each hop. So the more hops there are the longer my\n\u003e bitcoins are potentially locked up for?\n\nThe hops are limited to the time-value which the sender wishes to pay\nand the minimum acceptable timeout between each hop. It should be\nrelatively cheap if you game it out, though (I don't forsee me opening a\n1 BTC channel and being able to make $5 per month...)\n\n1-day is used as a convenience. However, the time between hops should be\nsomewhat long, as the intermediate steps can be extended further when\nyou want to offload the HTLCs to others who have a channel open with\nboth counterparties. E.g. Alice sends a payment to Dave through Bob and\nCarol. Bob has a channel with Carol and has an HTLC with it, but that\nchannel seems to be used a lot. Erin has a relationship to both Bob and\nCarol, she can offload the payment so that the payment actually goes to\nA-\u003eB-\u003eE-\u003eC-\u003eD. B\u003c-\u003eC is now completely clear.\n\n\u003e \u003e On Aug 9, 2015 1:15 PM, \"Hector Chu\" \u003chectorchu at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e In the Lightning network it is assumed that the balances can always\n\u003e \u003e\u003e be settled on the blockchain if any of the parties along the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e channel has a problem. What if the fee on the settlement\n\u003e \u003e\u003e transactions is not high enough to enter the blockchain? You can't\n\u003e \u003e\u003e do replace-by-fee after the fact. Do the fees always have to assume\n\u003e \u003e\u003e worst case scenarios on the Bitcoin fee market?\n\nHow do you send coins if you wanted to send funds below the current\nIsStandard value? It should be no different. If your wallet can't send\nfunds below the IsStandard value on-chain today, then I don't think it\nshould be able to to in the future, right? If you send funds *at* the\nminimum IsStandard value today, you're probably paying really high fees,\nthis is a problem that exists today.\n\n-- \nJoseph Poon",
"sig": "afb5336ed5867b2efebacd27c912c01effd338ebbcbcc8fc699a4ae85f35d21b6e50a6ebe79352bdc592c4a21aa5ae126c8c1042dbd7a0e5b68d14f53314b927"
}