Good morning fiatjaf,

> No. My question was more like why does Alice decide to build a route that for 
> through T1 and RT2 and not only through one trampoline router she knows.

If Alice only always used one trampoline node, then the trampoline node can 
assume the next hop is always the payee, and thus record who the payee is 
(eroding privacy).
If Alice uses two, then a trampoline node would have a 50/50 chance of knowing 
who the final payee is, reducing the privacy erosion.

Similarly, onion routing over Tor typically passes through 3 "trampoline" nodes 
before going to the actual site being accessed.

>
> That makes sense you me in the context of ZmnSCPxj's virtual space idea, but 
> not necessarily in the current network conditions. You also said we're going 
> to need some hierarchy, but what it's that? Is it required?

I believe in the future we will see a public network that is too large to fit 
on most devices available to most people.
We may or may not want to have such an enormous network, but the cost of 
advertising a public channel is the same as the cost of creating a non-public 
channel, thus there is no incentive for random end-user nodes to *not* publish 
their channels, and incentive to publish (there is a tiny but non-zero chance 
of being routed through, especially as local-area specializations like 
JIT-Routing get implemented).

Thus, I believe it is eventually required that we hierarchicalize how we store 
information, with a "myopic" detailed channel map and a "rough" global map with 
just trampoline-payee association mappings.
I think it is best for each payer to define its own hierarchy or split, 
preferentially with some random component.

One might consider, however, that my ramblings are too indefinite and it would 
be better to see the network as it evolves.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev

Reply via email to