Joost Jager [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-02-17 🗒️ Summary of this message: The author ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-02-17
🗒️ Summary of this message: The author suggests that relying on large nodes for scoring data could lead to centralization, and argues that the `ha` flag allows small nodes to build their own view of the network.
📝 Original message:
>
> Right, that was my above point about fetching scoring data - there's three
> relevant "buckets" of
> nodes, I think - (a) large nodes sending lots of payments, like the above,
> (b) "client nodes" that
> just connect to an LSP or two, (c) nodes that route some but don't send a
> lot of payments (but do
> send *some* payments), and may have lots or not very many channels.
>
> (a) I think we're getting there, and we don't need to add anything extra
> for this use-case beyond
> the network maturing and improving our scoring algorithms.
> (b) I think is trivially solved by downloading the data from a node in
> category (a), presumably the
> LSP(s) in question (see other branch of this thread)
> (c) is trickier, but I think the same solution of just fetching
> semi-trusted data here more than
> sufficies. For most routing nodes that don't send a lot of payments we're
> talking about a very small
> amount of payments, so trusting a third-party for scoring data seems
> reasonable.
>
I see that in your view all nodes will either be large nodes themselves, or
be downloading scoring data from large nodes. I'd argue that that is more
of a move towards centralisation than the `ha` flag is. The flag at least
allows small nodes to build up their view of the network in an efficient
and independently manner.
Joost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20230217/d0b4ac41/attachment.html>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: The author suggests that relying on large nodes for scoring data could lead to centralization, and argues that the `ha` flag allows small nodes to build their own view of the network.
📝 Original message:
>
> Right, that was my above point about fetching scoring data - there's three
> relevant "buckets" of
> nodes, I think - (a) large nodes sending lots of payments, like the above,
> (b) "client nodes" that
> just connect to an LSP or two, (c) nodes that route some but don't send a
> lot of payments (but do
> send *some* payments), and may have lots or not very many channels.
>
> (a) I think we're getting there, and we don't need to add anything extra
> for this use-case beyond
> the network maturing and improving our scoring algorithms.
> (b) I think is trivially solved by downloading the data from a node in
> category (a), presumably the
> LSP(s) in question (see other branch of this thread)
> (c) is trickier, but I think the same solution of just fetching
> semi-trusted data here more than
> sufficies. For most routing nodes that don't send a lot of payments we're
> talking about a very small
> amount of payments, so trusting a third-party for scoring data seems
> reasonable.
>
I see that in your view all nodes will either be large nodes themselves, or
be downloading scoring data from large nodes. I'd argue that that is more
of a move towards centralisation than the `ha` flag is. The flag at least
allows small nodes to build up their view of the network in an efficient
and independently manner.
Joost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20230217/d0b4ac41/attachment.html>;