Yes, that's what I'm suggesting, but I don't know if it's right or not.
I was assuming many small channels would be partially self regulating
because people would have to pay for more on chain transaction fees for
the opening and closing of the channels.
Andy Schroder
On 01/02/2018 08:11 AM
I see, are you suggesting that large channels could be an indicator of a
large actor trying to attract a lot of payment traffic? Not sure whether
that is really a good measure, since it is trivial for a large node to
masquerade as any number of smaller nodes, thus hiding its size.
We definitely wa
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
Andy Schroder writes:
> Andy Schroder
>
> On 12/27/2017 12:56 AM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>> Good morning Andy,
>>
>>>
>>> Channel closing
>>> costs dwarf the gains to be made from cheating, however.
>>>
>>> Since millisatoshis is used, is there a maximum channel
>>> funding size?
Mark Friedenbach writes:
> I had always assumed the protocol limits were training wheels, and would be
> shocked and dismayed if that were not the case (and would immediately begin
> work on an alternative fork because such limits would make lightning useless
> for my intended applications).
M
Andy Schroder 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
der
On 12/27/2017 03:13 PM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
Good morning Daniel,
---- Original Message ----
Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] General questions about channels
Local Time: December 27, 2017 10:30 PM
UTC Time: December 27, 2017 2:30 PM
From: therealsanga...@gmail.com
To: ZmnSCPxj
Andy Schroder ,
lightning-dev@l
t. It seems as though the channel
> limit puts an implicit payment limit in place.
>
> Andy Schroder
>
> On 12/27/2017 03:13 PM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>> Good morning Daniel,
>>
>>
>>
>>> Original Message
>>> Subject: Re: [L
rseen?
>
> Andy Schroder
>
> On 12/27/2017 03:13 PM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> >Good morning Daniel,
> >
> >
> >
> >> Original Message
> >>Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] General questions about channels
> >>Local Time: December 27, 2
morning Daniel,
Original Message ----
Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] General questions about channels
Local Time: December 27, 2017 10:30 PM
UTC Time: December 27, 2017 2:30 PM
From: therealsanga...@gmail.com
To: ZmnSCPxj
Andy Schroder ,
lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
I've only
Mark Friedenbach writes:
> Splitting a single payment into multiple invoices has bad semantic
> properties. Beyond implementation difficulties it also makes the
> payment no longer atomic. You can end up in a situation where part of
> a transaction has gone through but then channel capacity has be
>> Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] General questions about channels
>> Local Time: December 27, 2017 10:30 PM
>> UTC Time: December 27, 2017 2:30 PM
>> From: therealsanga...@gmail.com
>> To: ZmnSCPxj
>> Andy Schroder ,
>> lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundati
Good morning Daniel,
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] General questions about channels
> Local Time: December 27, 2017 10:30 PM
> UTC Time: December 27, 2017 2:30 PM
> From: therealsanga...@gmail.com
> To: ZmnSCPxj
> Andy Schrod
I've only really been getting my hands into LN the past few weeks but
I thought I'd share my thoughts here.
ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev wrote:
> Perhaps some day, in the LONG TERM, the limits may be increased
I was always under the impression that the channel and payment limits
were intended to b
Good morning Andy,
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] General questions about channels
> Local Time: December 27, 2017 2:27 PM
> UTC Time: December 27, 2017 6:27 AM
> From: i...@andysc
Andy Schroder
On 12/27/2017 01:06 AM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
Good morning Andy,
Andy Schroder
On 12/27/2017 12:18 AM, Andy Schroder wrote:
Channel closing
costs dwarf the gains to be made from cheating, however.
Since millisatoshis is used, is there a maximum channel funding size?
Yes, the uppe
Andy Schroder
On 12/27/2017 12:56 AM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
Good morning Andy,
Channel closing
costs dwarf the gains to be made from cheating, however.
Since millisatoshis is used, is there a maximum channel
funding size?
Yes, the upper 32 bits must be zero, from B
Good morning Andy,
> Andy Schroder
>
> On 12/27/2017 12:18 AM, Andy Schroder wrote:
>
>>> Channel closing
>>> costs dwarf the gains to be made from cheating, however.
>>>
Since millisatoshis is used, is there a maximum channel funding size?
>>>
>>> Yes, the upper 32 bits must be zero, from BO
Andy Schroder
On 12/27/2017 12:18 AM, Andy Schroder wrote:
Channel closing
costs dwarf the gains to be made from cheating, however.
Since millisatoshis is used, is there a maximum channel funding size?
Yes, the upper 32 bits must be zero, from BOLT #2:
- for channels with `chain_hash` id
Good morning Andy,
>
>
>> Channel closing
>> costs dwarf the gains to be made from cheating, however.
>>
>>> Since millisatoshis is used, is there a maximum channel funding size?
>>> Yes, the upper 32 bits must be zero, from BOLT #2:
>>
>> - for channels with chain_hash identifying the Bitcoin blo
Andy Schroder
On 12/18/2017 01:40 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Andy Schroder writes:
What's the rational for using millisatoshis as the units for lightning
channels? Aren't you going to loose up to 1/2 of a satoshi when the
channel is closed?
You can lose up to 0.999 satoshi per in-progress paym
Andy Schroder writes:
> What's the rational for using millisatoshis as the units for lightning
> channels? Aren't you going to loose up to 1/2 of a satoshi when the
> channel is closed?
You can lose up to 0.999 satoshi per in-progress payment, yes. BOLT #3:
The amounts for each output MUS
What's the rational for using millisatoshis as the units for lightning
channels? Aren't you going to loose up to 1/2 of a satoshi when the
channel is closed? Is this because it doesn't hurt and you might as well
be open to the opportunity for these sub satoshi transactions, because
if you aren'
23 matches
Mail list logo
