📅 Original date posted:2017-12-13
📝 Original message:
Thank you - this is lots of information !)
> You would also have to make your outgoing channels private (not sent by node gossip) so that others will not route through you.
If I would have only a single outgoing channel I would not have to
make it private ? Correct? There is no way to route through a node
that has one channel.
Another interesting question is what happens if I have lots of
channels, but in my software block all routing through my node?
Is there a way for me to block all routing through my node by
modifying node software but still enjoy all benefits of receiving and
sending deposits?
As you said, blocking all routing has lots of benefit since money is
safe if the network is down :-)
Sorry for playing devils advocate - I am just trying to understand it )
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:13 PM, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
> Good morning,
>
>>>If you have a reason to open a channel to an arbitrary node, then other
>>> nodes have a reason to open a channel to an arbitrary node, which might be
>>> you. Even if the
>>network grows large, that > also means there are more participants who
>> might decide, via whatever heuristic, to channel to your node.
>>
>>If I am connected to some nodes, but no one connected to me, then all
>>of my deposit is used by me only, and is not used by other nodes.
>>If I am routing nodes through my node, then it can potentially
>>negatively affect availability of my deposit for my own transactions.
>>So it seems to me that the best strategy is to connect but accept no
>>incoming connections.
>>
>>How much real is this problem?
>
> You would also have to make your outgoing channels private (not sent by node
> gossip) so that others will not route through you. You will not be able to
> receive money on-Lightning (since your channels are private, people who are
> trying to send money to you on-Lightning will not be able to find a route to
> you). You will not earn any money from routing fees (since you are not
> willing to have others use your channels for routing).
>
> It has the advantage that you can actually lose Internet connectivity
> indefinitely with no possibility of loss of funds, simply because in this
> mode of operation, channels are effectively unidirectional only from you to
> the rest of the network.
>
> However, I think in the long run, you would prefer to receive funds by
> Lightning also, and so cannot use this kind of operation. Consider that in
> the future, you may get paid your salary or dividends in bitcoin over
> Lightning: your business/employer receives money from its customer over
> Lightning, it sends part of that money to sub-contractors and suppliers, and
> some to you (employee or shareholder). You then spend the money you receive
> as salary/dividends for food and services and other vices you might have,
> which are provided by other businesses which have their own shareholders,
> employees, sub-contractors, and suppliers.
>
> In such a world, you would have to make your channels public and accept
> incoming channels, and at minimum accept incoming money (even if you reject
> routing attempts). Since routing can earn you some amount of money as fees,
> you probably want to accept at least a few routing attempts at a time to
> earn some fees (and offset the fees on your own transactions). This also
> leads to a more mesh-like network; the "unidirectional mode" where you keep
> all your channels private and only outgoing effectively makes you a
> second-class member of the network (and has higher onchain fees: if you have
> depleted a channel, there is an incentive to keep it open only if you are
> willing to accept routing attempts through you (every open channel is an
> opportunity to route, and a channel depleted on your end is full on the
> opposite end and you can still at least accept transactions toward you),
> otherwise, you are better off closing channels (and incurring fees) so you
> can recover the channel reserve).
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
Stan Kladko [ARCHIVE] /
npub1hd…v3wes
2023-06-09 12:48:03
in reply to nevent1q…wsn4
Author Public Key
npub1hd494269aenxtnartkwdlwcsa2xvuhtfaufh9kpetuz4m4n86q3qkv3wesPublished at
2023-06-09 12:48:03Event JSON
{
"id": "b0c2538004e11e281c0a46bacf6b54f89b6e13756101bf1ba0682a6758eff2ad",
"pubkey": "bb6a5aab45ee6665cfa35d9cdfbb10ea8cce5d69ef1372d8395f055dd667d022",
"created_at": 1686314883,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"81b92590efc5978b0f7574c7b296b0057ffe7b91eab7dae2e0e9c032227845a8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"afdc53f7e10e349eebc0a256d309e91c203712e7c8934c218ea97f78398a9cdc",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-12-13\n📝 Original message:\nThank you - this is lots of information !)\n\n\u003e You would also have to make your outgoing channels private (not sent by node gossip) so that others will not route through you.\n\nIf I would have only a single outgoing channel I would not have to\nmake it private ? Correct? There is no way to route through a node\nthat has one channel.\n\nAnother interesting question is what happens if I have lots of\nchannels, but in my software block all routing through my node?\n\nIs there a way for me to block all routing through my node by\nmodifying node software but still enjoy all benefits of receiving and\nsending deposits?\n\nAs you said, blocking all routing has lots of benefit since money is\nsafe if the network is down :-)\n\nSorry for playing devils advocate - I am just trying to understand it )\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:13 PM, ZmnSCPxj \u003cZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Good morning,\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003eIf you have a reason to open a channel to an arbitrary node, then other\n\u003e\u003e\u003e nodes have a reason to open a channel to an arbitrary node, which might be\n\u003e\u003e\u003e you. Even if the\n\u003e\u003enetwork grows large, that \u003e also means there are more participants who\n\u003e\u003e might decide, via whatever heuristic, to channel to your node.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003eIf I am connected to some nodes, but no one connected to me, then all\n\u003e\u003eof my deposit is used by me only, and is not used by other nodes.\n\u003e\u003eIf I am routing nodes through my node, then it can potentially\n\u003e\u003enegatively affect availability of my deposit for my own transactions.\n\u003e\u003eSo it seems to me that the best strategy is to connect but accept no\n\u003e\u003eincoming connections.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003eHow much real is this problem?\n\u003e\n\u003e You would also have to make your outgoing channels private (not sent by node\n\u003e gossip) so that others will not route through you. You will not be able to\n\u003e receive money on-Lightning (since your channels are private, people who are\n\u003e trying to send money to you on-Lightning will not be able to find a route to\n\u003e you). You will not earn any money from routing fees (since you are not\n\u003e willing to have others use your channels for routing).\n\u003e\n\u003e It has the advantage that you can actually lose Internet connectivity\n\u003e indefinitely with no possibility of loss of funds, simply because in this\n\u003e mode of operation, channels are effectively unidirectional only from you to\n\u003e the rest of the network.\n\u003e\n\u003e However, I think in the long run, you would prefer to receive funds by\n\u003e Lightning also, and so cannot use this kind of operation. Consider that in\n\u003e the future, you may get paid your salary or dividends in bitcoin over\n\u003e Lightning: your business/employer receives money from its customer over\n\u003e Lightning, it sends part of that money to sub-contractors and suppliers, and\n\u003e some to you (employee or shareholder). You then spend the money you receive\n\u003e as salary/dividends for food and services and other vices you might have,\n\u003e which are provided by other businesses which have their own shareholders,\n\u003e employees, sub-contractors, and suppliers.\n\u003e\n\u003e In such a world, you would have to make your channels public and accept\n\u003e incoming channels, and at minimum accept incoming money (even if you reject\n\u003e routing attempts). Since routing can earn you some amount of money as fees,\n\u003e you probably want to accept at least a few routing attempts at a time to\n\u003e earn some fees (and offset the fees on your own transactions). This also\n\u003e leads to a more mesh-like network; the \"unidirectional mode\" where you keep\n\u003e all your channels private and only outgoing effectively makes you a\n\u003e second-class member of the network (and has higher onchain fees: if you have\n\u003e depleted a channel, there is an incentive to keep it open only if you are\n\u003e willing to accept routing attempts through you (every open channel is an\n\u003e opportunity to route, and a channel depleted on your end is full on the\n\u003e opposite end and you can still at least accept transactions toward you),\n\u003e otherwise, you are better off closing channels (and incurring fees) so you\n\u003e can recover the channel reserve).\n\u003e\n\u003e Regards,\n\u003e ZmnSCPxj",
"sig": "5137c113715ab87664b1bdf1d0d2bd17edf44d9b8f5ea939e674277fdb0a9aabbf8268aa328b22a03447715777c9066dec8d4581b6895768194fe87e5ac5782a"
}