Gert-Jaap Glasbergen <gertj...@gertjaap.nl> writes: > Op 1 nov. 2018 om 03:38 heeft Rusty Russell > <ru...@rustcorp.com.au<mailto:ru...@rustcorp.com.au>> het volgende geschreven: >> I believe this would render you inoperable in practice; fees are >> frequently sub-satoshi, so you would fail everything. The entire >> network would have to drop millisatoshis, and the bitcoin maximalist in >> me thinks that's unwise :) > > I can see how not wanting to use millisatoshis makes you less compatible > with other people that do prefer using that unit of account. But in this > case I think it's important to allow the freedom to choose. > > I essentially feel we should be allowed to respect the confines of the layer > we're building upon. There's already a lot of benefits to achieve from second > layer scaling whilst still respecting the limits of the base layer. Staying > within those limits means optimally benefit form the security it offers. > > Essentially by allowing to keep satoshi as the smallest fraction, you ensure > that everything you do off-chain is also valid and enforced by the chain when > you need it to. It comes at trade offs though: it would mean that if someone > routes your payment, you can only pay fees in whole satoshis - essentially > meaning if someone wants to charge a (small) fee, you will be overpaying to > stay within your chosen security parameters. Which is a consequence of your > choice.
It should be pointed out here that the dust rules actually prevent us from creating an output that is smaller than the dust limit (546 satoshis on Bitcoin). By the same logic we would be forced to treat the dust limit as our atomic unit, and have transferred values and fees always be multiples of that dust limit. 546 satoshis is by no means a tiny amount anymore, i.e., 546'000 times the current minimum fee and value transferred. I think we will have to deal with values that are not representable / enforceable on-chain anyway, so we might as well make things more flexible by keeping msatoshis. > I would be happy to make a further analysis on what consequences allowing this > choice would have for the specification, and come up with a proposal on how to > add support for this. But I guess this discussion is meant to "test the > waters" > to see how much potential such a proposal would have to eventually be > included. > > I guess what I'm searching for is a way to achieve the freedom of choice, > without negatively impacting other clients or users that decide to accept some > level of trust. In my view, this would be possible - but I think working it > out > in a concrete proposal/RFC to the spec would be a logical next step. With a lot of choice comes great power, with great power comes great responsibility... uh I mean complexity :-) I'm all for giving users the freedom to chose what they feel comfortable with, but this freedom comes at a high cost and the protocol is very complex as it is. So we need to find the right configuration options, and I think not too many users will care about their unit of transfer, especially when it's handled automatically for them. Cheers, Christian _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev