📅 Original date posted:2015-09-24
📝 Original message:
Amos Bairn <eylrid at gmail.com> writes:
> The obvious problem with having the whole network use the same set of
> beacons at the same time is that those nodes will get slammed. A possible
> solution is to have each user pick their own set of beacons (at random),
> but make the beacon set large enough so that any two users are likely to
> share a few. That way the all of nodes would share the load roughly evenly.
The core scaling problem is propagating current fee information (ie. the
dynamic part of route information) across the network. That's easy with
agreed beacons. Hard with random beacons.
Beacons are going to get slammed, but it's not clear how bad it is.
Getting slammed from all directions doesn't use up channels; it's only
computational and bandwidth limits.
Their neighbors will want to buff up, too (they'll take some load off
the beacon if both parties route through them).
A semi-realistic simulation would be interesting. If payments cluster
by geography and some random channels are established by proximity
(ie. low latency) that may take some of load off the beacons too.
Cheers,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-09 12:44:32
in reply to nevent1q…nahm
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-09 12:44:32Event JSON
{
"id": "3cc97b56910d1e65a19e11b991236a6682727b13e9f80b5eb972287c7fcb98b4",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686314672,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d508e26ae44d949f7c534399c4b1e4f82df043bc5ea4ea4a1d4d81571bfaec45",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ad2fee09745921adee1ba4c1fbcdb324ec2f59104d941882be820fd861eae5a7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7b06ddce9de13e721393b0cddfafb893cf328773dd66f6f74ba14cd0cf183749"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-24\n📝 Original message:\nAmos Bairn \u003ceylrid at gmail.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e The obvious problem with having the whole network use the same set of\n\u003e beacons at the same time is that those nodes will get slammed. A possible\n\u003e solution is to have each user pick their own set of beacons (at random),\n\u003e but make the beacon set large enough so that any two users are likely to\n\u003e share a few. That way the all of nodes would share the load roughly evenly.\n\nThe core scaling problem is propagating current fee information (ie. the\ndynamic part of route information) across the network. That's easy with\nagreed beacons. Hard with random beacons.\n\nBeacons are going to get slammed, but it's not clear how bad it is.\nGetting slammed from all directions doesn't use up channels; it's only\ncomputational and bandwidth limits.\n\nTheir neighbors will want to buff up, too (they'll take some load off\nthe beacon if both parties route through them).\n\nA semi-realistic simulation would be interesting. If payments cluster\nby geography and some random channels are established by proximity\n(ie. low latency) that may take some of load off the beacons too.\n\nCheers,\nRusty.",
"sig": "fdd70588dff5aafd538c215dee6fa2f02a96c9019cfde1a46b840b50075e14ee828ba5d35010a2103760b380bb8e2173546103fe571e808abd87048f9a3b48f8"
}