reply on: Two Questions for Lightning Experts \ stacker news ~lightning

pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @ek 2h \ parent \ on: Two Questions for Lightning Experts lightning

Most nodes aren't, nor should they be, routers.

doesn't matter, we're talking about reliability and only routing nodes matter for that

Routing fees are not meant to be earned, they simply make the system work... Fees in offset fees out. Lightning isn't a yield farm, it's free transactions on-net. Only a handful of value added services attract yield.

Okay, then let me rephrase it: isn't offsetting fees enough?

But no matter what the argument to start or keep running a routing node actually is, I don't think it depends on justice tx.

Or would you say someone will say: "Oh, there are no justice tx that can make me lose all my money in a channel, so I won't run a (reliable) routing node (anymore)."

I think I would actually start running a routing node when there's less risk of losing funds while running one.

The only purpose to removing the justice tx is for fake nodes on mobile devices, which are unreliable and generally useless for receiving.

Surely nobody else would ever make a mistake and accidentally lose all their funds in a channel because of a justice tx

Mobile nodes are upstream of all the fud, trust, and stupidity that goes on in lightning, and the provenance of fake L2's.

The illusion they can be made to work holds lightning back.

What's your take on Phoenix?

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @justin_shocknet 2h

we're talking about reliability and only routing nodes matter for that

Horse hockey. If people cannot reliably receive payments they have no incentive to use it, unidirectional usage creates a number of sustainability problems. You literally build an app for people to receive payments and is therefore useless without reliable receiving.

enough

More incentives are better than less.

The notion that we should encourage cheating, by removing the disincentive to do so, simply because there are other incentives at work is to encourage fragility.

You're hung up on routing nodes when there is no such thing, that's a larp. There are only economic nodes, and you can't engage in economics offline. You're saying you want less nodes.

Surely nobody else would ever make a mistake

We should get rid of traffic lights because someone might run them. This is the kind of weakness that begets hard times.

Phoenix wallet

I was vindicated on my years of mobile node fud the second they pivoted to Phoenixd

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 1h

Horse hockey

Thanks, I did not know this word. You're saying it's deceitful to say that only nodes that can route payments matter for reliability?

Does it not matter for reliability to have nodes that can route payments?

If people cannot reliably receive payments they have no incentive to use it, unidirectional usage creates a number of sustainability problems.

I was talking about this claim:

proposals to remove the justice tx are an attack on LN themselves, by removing the onlineness incentive and therefore undermining reliability for the network as a whole

Why are you now talking about unidirectional usage / missing inbound liquidity as a reason for failed payments? What does this have to do with what I said?

You're hung up on routing nodes when there is no such thing

A routing node is any node between sender and receiver. That's definitely a thing. More broadly, you could say a node is a routing node if that's its primary purpose. I'm pretty sure that's also a thing.

You're saying you want less nodes.

I literally said I would run a routing node if there was less risk

I was vindicated on my years of mobile node fud the second they pivoted to Phoenixd

They didn't pivot. They have no intentions of abandoning the mobile wallet.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 1h

You're saying it's deceitful to say that only nodes that can route payments matter for reliability?

Routing is a function of a receiver being online to receive what's routed.

Does it not matter for reliability to have nodes that can route payments?

Is this a serious question?

removing the onlineness incentive

What does this have to do with what I said?

I'm not sure wtf you're talking about at all... if nodes are offline that's bad for reliability. How hard is this?

I literally said I would run a routing node if there was less risk

Less risk of what? shooting yourself in the foot or someone else shooting you?

The fact you keep using the phrase routing node inclines me to think you shouldn't be running one.

They didn't pivot. They have no intentions of abandoning the mobile wallet.

Absolutely did, pivot doesn't mean abandoning old customers, in means looking for new ones.... because mobile is a dead end and can never work commercially or at scale.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 1h

Routing is a function of a receiver being online to receive what's routed.

There's no routing if I have a direct channel

I won't reply to the other stuff, I see no point in continuing this discussion

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 1h

You're the one that keeps talking about routing, not me. Good luck with your direct channel if your peer is offline.

I see no point in continuing this discussion

Lightning 101 is down the hall.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 1h

My peer did send me an invoice to pay them. They will be online.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 1h

They will be online.

Guess you won't try to cheat them by publishing an old state then.