Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-06-28 📝 Original message: On 6/28/22 9:05 AM, ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-06-28
📝 Original message:
On 6/28/22 9:05 AM, Christian Decker wrote:
> It is worth mentioning here that the LN protocol is generally not very
> latency sensitive, and from my experience can easily handle very slow
> signers (3-5 seconds delay) without causing too many issues, aside from
> slower forwards in case we are talking about a routing node. I'd expect
> routing node signers to be well below the 1 second mark, even when
> implementing more complex signer logic, including MuSig2 or nested
> FROST.
In general, and especially for "edge nodes", yes, but if forwarding nodes start taking a full second
to forward a payment, we probably need to start aggressively avoiding any such nodes - while I'd
love for all forwarding nodes to take 30 seconds to forward to improve privacy, users ideally expect
payments to complete in 100ms, with multiple payment retries in between.
This obviously probably isn't ever going to happen in lightning, but getting 95th percentile
payments down to one second is probably a good goal, something that requires never having to retry
payments and also having forwarding nodes not take more than, say, 150ms.
Of course I don't think we should ever introduce a timeout on the peer level - if your peer went
away for a second and isn't responding quickly to channel updates it doesn't merit closing a
channel, but its something we will eventually want to handle in route selection if it becomes more
of an issue going forward.
Matt
📝 Original message:
On 6/28/22 9:05 AM, Christian Decker wrote:
> It is worth mentioning here that the LN protocol is generally not very
> latency sensitive, and from my experience can easily handle very slow
> signers (3-5 seconds delay) without causing too many issues, aside from
> slower forwards in case we are talking about a routing node. I'd expect
> routing node signers to be well below the 1 second mark, even when
> implementing more complex signer logic, including MuSig2 or nested
> FROST.
In general, and especially for "edge nodes", yes, but if forwarding nodes start taking a full second
to forward a payment, we probably need to start aggressively avoiding any such nodes - while I'd
love for all forwarding nodes to take 30 seconds to forward to improve privacy, users ideally expect
payments to complete in 100ms, with multiple payment retries in between.
This obviously probably isn't ever going to happen in lightning, but getting 95th percentile
payments down to one second is probably a good goal, something that requires never having to retry
payments and also having forwarding nodes not take more than, say, 150ms.
Of course I don't think we should ever introduce a timeout on the peer level - if your peer went
away for a second and isn't responding quickly to channel updates it doesn't merit closing a
channel, but its something we will eventually want to handle in route selection if it becomes more
of an issue going forward.
Matt