So when a channel depletes, the receiver should splice out and the liquidity provider should JIT splice in, incurring two on-chain txs? That seems coordination-heavy and expensive, I guess best case a 2 input (splice in + og channel) 2 output (splice out + new channel) with some musig coop magic? Sub swaps are just 1 in 1 out in the best case, no cooperation with peer necessary.
Re hot potato, kind of but there’s additional nuance imo. If you’re paying routing fees your tx is an economically viable one is my book, same as on-chain 🤷♂️ What keeps LN from being zero sum today is 1) new entrants opening new channels adding liquidity to the network and 2) sub swap providers facilitating liquidity exiting the network while leaving channels open. Activity might not be perfectly economically rational, but it’s significantly improved over the last several years and trending very positively imo.
I think a worse outcome long term than lost money from a mass exit attack would be node operators locking down the permissionlessness of new channel peers. That would be very sad and harmful to the incentives of the network. So please don’t do it to make a point, lol!
ryanthegentry /
npub1ua…7n24e
2023-03-21 13:40:32
in reply to nevent1q…z3pv
Author Public Key
npub1uatf9mr3za8xnr0370gl2acc2k7vfeh9dpyf6t426jyasyry4nnqe7n24ePublished at
2023-03-21 13:40:32Event JSON
{
"id": "c1c8c054bbece8e4c8ad18c7c33e9f031f3bd1779f397a4ff997d6712e1a8197",
"pubkey": "e75692ec71174e698df1f3d1f5771855bcc4e6e568489d2eaad489d81064ace6",
"created_at": 1679406032,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"20eaded1c5f53a2d4905abdf34eba5f78567b85dd851cd40f2a9f2001bb808cf"
],
[
"e",
"0910ba3e8e58ad1ea60bd6be836a1785a827bf366ec45f451f6c09a623f3487a"
],
[
"p",
"65594f279a789982b55c02a38c92a99b986f891d2814c5f553d1bbfe3e23853d"
],
[
"p",
"eaf27aa104833bcd16f671488b01d65f6da30163b5848aea99677cc947dd00aa"
],
[
"p",
"3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d"
],
[
"p",
"5be6446aa8a31c11b3b453bf8dafc9b346ff328d1fa11a0fa02a1e6461f6a9b1"
],
[
"p",
"5be6446aa8a31c11b3b453bf8dafc9b346ff328d1fa11a0fa02a1e6461f6a9b1"
],
[
"p",
"5be6446aa8a31c11b3b453bf8dafc9b346ff328d1fa11a0fa02a1e6461f6a9b1"
],
[
"p",
"5be6446aa8a31c11b3b453bf8dafc9b346ff328d1fa11a0fa02a1e6461f6a9b1"
]
],
"content": "So when a channel depletes, the receiver should splice out and the liquidity provider should JIT splice in, incurring two on-chain txs? That seems coordination-heavy and expensive, I guess best case a 2 input (splice in + og channel) 2 output (splice out + new channel) with some musig coop magic? Sub swaps are just 1 in 1 out in the best case, no cooperation with peer necessary.\n\nRe hot potato, kind of but there’s additional nuance imo. If you’re paying routing fees your tx is an economically viable one is my book, same as on-chain 🤷♂️ What keeps LN from being zero sum today is 1) new entrants opening new channels adding liquidity to the network and 2) sub swap providers facilitating liquidity exiting the network while leaving channels open. Activity might not be perfectly economically rational, but it’s significantly improved over the last several years and trending very positively imo. \n\nI think a worse outcome long term than lost money from a mass exit attack would be node operators locking down the permissionlessness of new channel peers. That would be very sad and harmful to the incentives of the network. So please don’t do it to make a point, lol!",
"sig": "c3725effc4bfc52c2d58e8ebf2d8243f7e250b3e4d0554b15e7b346acce9dd5367a797b872997e73bd90a4f2af926a14c11f2b4158b7811709e8cc6706f5186b"
}