Antoine Riard [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-11-24 📝 Original message: Hi Clara, I think the ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-11-24
📝 Original message:
Hi Clara,
I think the simplest recommended policy you can devise is credential shown
to the routing hop should cover for full routing fees, therefore the
routing hop benefits from a zero-jamming risk situation. Then you can
appreciate the "liquidity value" credentials requested in function of your
local channel congestion rate, or even network data. Increasing your
returns in exchange of higher risk exposure. And even more, you can lay on
top a reputation layer, where the reputation scores are fully fungible
against monetary credentials, in the acceptance of a HTLC forward request.
So I think I agree with you a recommended policy is needed, let's just
start with a simple one! And refine it with time once we sense we have
solid foundations.
Best,
Antoine
Le mer. 23 nov. 2022 à 11:00, Clara Shikhelman <clara.shikhelman at gmail.com>
a écrit :
> Hi Antoine,
>
> To discuss your proposed solution in detail, I think that some kind of
> recommended policy is needed. If presenting one is a low priority, and
> waiting for other things, my main concern is that it will just never happen
> ("any decade now" kind of situation).
>
> Best,
> Clara
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 8:13 PM Antoine Riard <antoine.riard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Clara,
>>
>> Shared the mail on #lightning-dev Libera chat to get more feedback on
>> schedule.
>>
>> > Do you have a timeline in mind for presenting such a policy?
>>
>> See the comments on the BOLT #1043 PR, for now I'm thinking more to
>> refine the proposed credentials architectural framework.
>> I think dynamic routing policy in function of channel congestion rate,
>> and you combine that with reputation to do active risk-management are far
>> more advanced questions.
>>
>> Best,
>> Antoine
>>
>> Le mar. 22 nov. 2022 à 15:54, Clara Shikhelman <
>> clara.shikhelman at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> If the call time (Monday the 28th at 7 pm UTC) doesn't work out for you,
>>> please reach out!
>>>
>>> Thanks for your quick and detailed response, Antoine.
>>>
>>> If by recommend policy, you mean the set of algorithms that should guide
>>>> the token quantity, rate issuance, token acquisition cost, and the
>>>> adaptations in function of the local channel congestion, or even the
>>>> gossips of the other routing nodes, not at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a timeline in mind for presenting such a policy?
>>>
>>> Looking forward to discussing this further over the phone call, will
>>> make some inquiries to make sure the time works for most people.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Clara
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20221123/4dfcbdf3/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:
Hi Clara,
I think the simplest recommended policy you can devise is credential shown
to the routing hop should cover for full routing fees, therefore the
routing hop benefits from a zero-jamming risk situation. Then you can
appreciate the "liquidity value" credentials requested in function of your
local channel congestion rate, or even network data. Increasing your
returns in exchange of higher risk exposure. And even more, you can lay on
top a reputation layer, where the reputation scores are fully fungible
against monetary credentials, in the acceptance of a HTLC forward request.
So I think I agree with you a recommended policy is needed, let's just
start with a simple one! And refine it with time once we sense we have
solid foundations.
Best,
Antoine
Le mer. 23 nov. 2022 à 11:00, Clara Shikhelman <clara.shikhelman at gmail.com>
a écrit :
> Hi Antoine,
>
> To discuss your proposed solution in detail, I think that some kind of
> recommended policy is needed. If presenting one is a low priority, and
> waiting for other things, my main concern is that it will just never happen
> ("any decade now" kind of situation).
>
> Best,
> Clara
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 8:13 PM Antoine Riard <antoine.riard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Clara,
>>
>> Shared the mail on #lightning-dev Libera chat to get more feedback on
>> schedule.
>>
>> > Do you have a timeline in mind for presenting such a policy?
>>
>> See the comments on the BOLT #1043 PR, for now I'm thinking more to
>> refine the proposed credentials architectural framework.
>> I think dynamic routing policy in function of channel congestion rate,
>> and you combine that with reputation to do active risk-management are far
>> more advanced questions.
>>
>> Best,
>> Antoine
>>
>> Le mar. 22 nov. 2022 à 15:54, Clara Shikhelman <
>> clara.shikhelman at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> If the call time (Monday the 28th at 7 pm UTC) doesn't work out for you,
>>> please reach out!
>>>
>>> Thanks for your quick and detailed response, Antoine.
>>>
>>> If by recommend policy, you mean the set of algorithms that should guide
>>>> the token quantity, rate issuance, token acquisition cost, and the
>>>> adaptations in function of the local channel congestion, or even the
>>>> gossips of the other routing nodes, not at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a timeline in mind for presenting such a policy?
>>>
>>> Looking forward to discussing this further over the phone call, will
>>> make some inquiries to make sure the time works for most people.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Clara
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20221123/4dfcbdf3/attachment.html>;