Stefan Richter [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: đź“… Original date posted:2021-08-15 đź“ť Original message: Good morning Zmn! That is ...
đź“… Original date posted:2021-08-15
đź“ť Original message:
Good morning Zmn!
That is indeed precisely what we do. We usually quantize the min-cost flow
into minimum shares of, say, 10kSat to 100kSat. This makes the algorithm
run faster and loses very little precision. It also gives a simple way of
dealing with (reasonable) min-htlc-size values.
Cheers,
Stefan
ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev <lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
schrieb am So., 15. Aug. 2021, 16:03:
> Good morning lisa, aj, et al.,
>
>
> > The result is that micropayments have a different payment regime than
> “non-micropayments”, (which may still incentive almost irrational behavior)
> but at least there’s no *loss* felt by node operators for
> handling/supporting low value payments. 10k micropayments is worth 10sats.
> >
> > It’s also simple to implement and seems rather obvious in retrospect.
>
>
> It seems simple to implement for *forwarders*, but I think complicates the
> algorithm described by Pickhardt and Richter?
>
> On the other hand, the algorithm is targeted towards "large" payments, so
> perhaps the Pickhardt-Richter payment algo can be forced to have some
> minimum split size, and payments below this minimum size are just sent as
> single payments (on the assumption that such micropayments are so small
> that the probability of failure is negligible).
> That is, just have the `pay` command branch based on the payment size, if
> it is below the minimum size, just use the old try-and-try-until-you-die
> algo, otherwise use a variant on the Pickhardt-Richter algo that respects
> this minimum payment size.
> This somewhat implies a minimum on the possible feerate, which we could
> say is 1 ppm, maybe.
>
> So for example, the minimum size could be 1,000,000msat, or 1,000sat.
> If the payment is much larger than that, use the Pickhardt-Richter
> algorithm with zerobasefee.
> If payment is lower than that threshold, just do not split and do
> try-and-try-until-you-die.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210815/df395dd3/attachment-0001.html>;
đź“ť Original message:
Good morning Zmn!
That is indeed precisely what we do. We usually quantize the min-cost flow
into minimum shares of, say, 10kSat to 100kSat. This makes the algorithm
run faster and loses very little precision. It also gives a simple way of
dealing with (reasonable) min-htlc-size values.
Cheers,
Stefan
ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev <lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
schrieb am So., 15. Aug. 2021, 16:03:
> Good morning lisa, aj, et al.,
>
>
> > The result is that micropayments have a different payment regime than
> “non-micropayments”, (which may still incentive almost irrational behavior)
> but at least there’s no *loss* felt by node operators for
> handling/supporting low value payments. 10k micropayments is worth 10sats.
> >
> > It’s also simple to implement and seems rather obvious in retrospect.
>
>
> It seems simple to implement for *forwarders*, but I think complicates the
> algorithm described by Pickhardt and Richter?
>
> On the other hand, the algorithm is targeted towards "large" payments, so
> perhaps the Pickhardt-Richter payment algo can be forced to have some
> minimum split size, and payments below this minimum size are just sent as
> single payments (on the assumption that such micropayments are so small
> that the probability of failure is negligible).
> That is, just have the `pay` command branch based on the payment size, if
> it is below the minimum size, just use the old try-and-try-until-you-die
> algo, otherwise use a variant on the Pickhardt-Richter algo that respects
> this minimum payment size.
> This somewhat implies a minimum on the possible feerate, which we could
> say is 1 ppm, maybe.
>
> So for example, the minimum size could be 1,000,000msat, or 1,000sat.
> If the payment is much larger than that, use the Pickhardt-Richter
> algorithm with zerobasefee.
> If payment is lower than that threshold, just do not split and do
> try-and-try-until-you-die.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210815/df395dd3/attachment-0001.html>;