God afternoon ZmnSCPxj,

Sorry if I was being a bit pedantic,

I just want to be clear that I agree with both yours and Andrea's
arguments
in the initial responses and I see now why the idea doesn't make much sense
at all
in terms of scale and privacy.

> > My initial point was that the fee would be proportionally higher for
every satoshi used closer to the far end of the channel.
> > So the fee would proportional to the state of the channel in addition
to the size of the payment.
>

> But the final state of the channel has a subtractive relationship from the
> payment size.
> So I fear we have largely fallen into an argument on exact semantics and
> mathematical models that may not be particularly relevant to pragmatic use
> of LN.
>

I'm not trying to argue here as I agree with you it's not practical, I just
wanted to clarify as we seemed
to be talking passed each other on that particular point.

Best regards
John-John Markstedt
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev

Reply via email to