Christian Decker [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-06-29 📝 Original message: Matt Corallo <lf-lists at ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-06-29
📝 Original message:
Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> writes:
> 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
Absolutely agreed, and I wasn't trying to say that latency is not a
concern, I was merely pointing out that the protocol as is, is very
latency-tolerant. That doesn't mean that routers shouldn't strive to be
as fast as possible, but I think the MuSig schemes, executed over local
links, is unlikely to be problematic when considering overall network
latency that we have anyway.
For edge nodes it's rather nice to have relaxed timings, given that they
might be on slow or flaky connections, but routers are a completely
different category.
Christian
📝 Original message:
Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> writes:
> 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
Absolutely agreed, and I wasn't trying to say that latency is not a
concern, I was merely pointing out that the protocol as is, is very
latency-tolerant. That doesn't mean that routers shouldn't strive to be
as fast as possible, but I think the MuSig schemes, executed over local
links, is unlikely to be problematic when considering overall network
latency that we have anyway.
For edge nodes it's rather nice to have relaxed timings, given that they
might be on slow or flaky connections, but routers are a completely
different category.
Christian