Andy Schroder [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2018-01-02 š Original message: What you are saying makes ...
š
Original date posted:2018-01-02
š Original message:
What you are saying makes perfect sense for the short term.
What I am talking about could promote a big picture healthier network
long term by discouraging "super nodes" in the network from existing, if
you avoid making connections to nodes that have large channel capacities
with other parties.
Does this make sense?
Andy Schroder
On 01/01/2018 12:47 PM, Christian Decker wrote:
> Andy Schroder <info at AndySchroder.com> writes:
>> I understand that you have to be in agreement with your direct peers. So
>> you don't really care about what agreements others in your route may
>> have in place? I would think that you would choose not to route through
>> hops that violate your capacity limit.
> I'm failing to see why I'd care about a remote channel's capacity, aside
> from it being large enough to cover the amount I want to transfer. As a
> participant routing through a channel that has a higher capacity I do
> not incur any additional risk than from a smaller channel, since the
> payment is guaranteed to be atomic. In the contrary one could argue that
> a higher capacity channel has a higher probability of having sufficient
> capacity in the desired direction to forward my transfer.
>
> Maybe I'm failing to see something? I always interpreted the limit as
> purely self-defense on how much value I'm confident enough to keep in a
> channel.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
š Original message:
What you are saying makes perfect sense for the short term.
What I am talking about could promote a big picture healthier network
long term by discouraging "super nodes" in the network from existing, if
you avoid making connections to nodes that have large channel capacities
with other parties.
Does this make sense?
Andy Schroder
On 01/01/2018 12:47 PM, Christian Decker wrote:
> Andy Schroder <info at AndySchroder.com> writes:
>> I understand that you have to be in agreement with your direct peers. So
>> you don't really care about what agreements others in your route may
>> have in place? I would think that you would choose not to route through
>> hops that violate your capacity limit.
> I'm failing to see why I'd care about a remote channel's capacity, aside
> from it being large enough to cover the amount I want to transfer. As a
> participant routing through a channel that has a higher capacity I do
> not incur any additional risk than from a smaller channel, since the
> payment is guaranteed to be atomic. In the contrary one could argue that
> a higher capacity channel has a higher probability of having sufficient
> capacity in the desired direction to forward my transfer.
>
> Maybe I'm failing to see something? I always interpreted the limit as
> purely self-defense on how much value I'm confident enough to keep in a
> channel.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>