On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 10:26:45PM +0000, jlspc via Lightning-dev wrote: > From my perspective, this paper makes two contributions (which, to be fair, > may only be "interesting" :)
One thing that confuses me about the paper is how to think about routing to a "channel" rather than a node -- ie the payment from "E->FG->A" where "FG" isn't "F" or "G", but "both of them". It feels like there's a whole mass of complications hidden in there from a routing perspective; like how do you link "FG" back with "F" and "G", how do you decide fees, how do you communicate fees/max_htlc/etc. I think it also implies that channel capacity is no longer really something you can gossip very sensibly -- if you have a factory ((A,B),C,D,E) then every payment through AB to C or D or E will decrease AB's channel capacity. You could still gossip the capacity of the overall factory, and sum that to get an overall lightning network capacity, of course. But a lot of the ways of simplifying it also make it harder to do all the nice rebalancing. Anyway, I've tried a few times now to put some thoughts together on that and come up with nothing that I'm happy with, so figured it might be at least worth posing explicitly as a problem... Cheers, aj _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
