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 <i...@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
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
