📅 Original date posted:2015-09-27
📝 Original message:
Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 09:56:02AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> [ Pieter Wuille Cc'd for pubkey recovery, search for "recovered" ]
>> Mats Jerratsch <matsjj at gmail.com> writes:
>> >> Indeed. Random selection helps, here, but analysis will be interesting.
>> > How have you ended up with a number of beacons you need? 12 seems so
>> > low, I can’t imagine so few nodes to support all transacting for even
>> > 10 minutes..
>> As we keep the last 100 sets of beacons, the load is spread a little.
>
> Does that actually work? Old beacons don't do any good if the payee
> doesn't use them when advertising a route; but old beacons also don't
> get their fee updates propogated, and aren't known by people who only
> just joined the network. I don't think you could usefully keep more than
> the last 2 or 3 sets of beacons?
I was thinking they all count as active. No point turning over all the
beacons every block.
>> To start, I was thinking you establish channels with 5 random nodes.
>
> I think Barabasi-Albert graphs are probably pretty reasonable here --
> you start by establishing channels to N nodes, selected randomly but
> favouring nodes in proportion to how connected they already are.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barab%C3%A1si%E2%80%93Albert_model
Interesting. If we assume growth only (as I suggested) we end up with a
geometric distribution (as backed by Section 5 of
http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/BEJ/user/submissionFile/10315?confirm=c40442a0
).
It's not clear to me (without reading the paper) how much attachment
bias is required for a power law to apply, however. Larger nodes may be
incentivized (through profit) to have better uptime, leading to a slight
attachment bias. Definitely second order.
It's not clear that we want a power law: do we?
Cheers,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-09 12:44:36
in reply to nevent1q…q8m9
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-09 12:44:36Event JSON
{
"id": "40a2ea7b0581071dbbf2cdb14d4ef5eebcd3f35cb33b05408e7e783b162331e1",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686314676,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d508e26ae44d949f7c534399c4b1e4f82df043bc5ea4ea4a1d4d81571bfaec45",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"edcedc66d7ba9c30321ff66cc65107d73a8390215b34f38364e0b2afb3d81e19",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-27\n📝 Original message:\nAnthony Towns \u003caj at erisian.com.au\u003e writes:\n\u003e On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 09:56:02AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:\n\u003e\u003e [ Pieter Wuille Cc'd for pubkey recovery, search for \"recovered\" ]\n\u003e\u003e Mats Jerratsch \u003cmatsjj at gmail.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e Indeed. Random selection helps, here, but analysis will be interesting.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e How have you ended up with a number of beacons you need? 12 seems so\n\u003e\u003e \u003e low, I can’t imagine so few nodes to support all transacting for even\n\u003e\u003e \u003e 10 minutes..\n\u003e\u003e As we keep the last 100 sets of beacons, the load is spread a little.\n\u003e\n\u003e Does that actually work? Old beacons don't do any good if the payee\n\u003e doesn't use them when advertising a route; but old beacons also don't\n\u003e get their fee updates propogated, and aren't known by people who only\n\u003e just joined the network. I don't think you could usefully keep more than\n\u003e the last 2 or 3 sets of beacons?\n\nI was thinking they all count as active. No point turning over all the\nbeacons every block.\n\n\u003e\u003e To start, I was thinking you establish channels with 5 random nodes.\n\u003e\n\u003e I think Barabasi-Albert graphs are probably pretty reasonable here --\n\u003e you start by establishing channels to N nodes, selected randomly but\n\u003e favouring nodes in proportion to how connected they already are.\n\u003e\n\u003e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barab%C3%A1si%E2%80%93Albert_model\n\nInteresting. If we assume growth only (as I suggested) we end up with a\ngeometric distribution (as backed by Section 5 of\nhttp://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/BEJ/user/submissionFile/10315?confirm=c40442a0\n).\n\nIt's not clear to me (without reading the paper) how much attachment\nbias is required for a power law to apply, however. Larger nodes may be\nincentivized (through profit) to have better uptime, leading to a slight\nattachment bias. Definitely second order.\n\nIt's not clear that we want a power law: do we?\n\nCheers,\nRusty.",
"sig": "eb0781ecae9fa54a4c22c6cf2088b78db3493e876168369676e9316e40759881464c23e4b28c078998942e5d0c06e18ca62c7997fabe2be339bc461ad5f14b0e"
}