pull down to refresh

1 sat \ 9 replies \ @BlokchainB 4h \ on: Stacker Saloon
Eclair #3248 starts prioritizing private channels over public ones when forwarding HTLCs, if both options are available. This keeps more liquidity available in public channels, which are visible to the network. When two channels have the same visibility, Eclair now prioritizes the channel with the smaller balance

Why would Eclair do this? I think people who have private channels don’t want their liquidity to be used.

@DarthCoin

You agree with this PR???

write
preview
77 sats \ 7 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 4h
I think people who have private channels don’t want their liquidity to be used.

I think private channels don’t act as routers. They’re just the start/end of a route. Am I wrong?

reply
1 sat \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 3h

yes, but in this case I think they refer to something else, to make more efficient routing.

reply
191 sats \ 5 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 3h
by t-bast

When relaying payments, we want to select private channels first and keep as much liquidity available as possible in public channels, to ensure that we don't send a channel_update that would otherwise disable the public channel (and thus make the private channels also unusable since they aren't visible by path-finding algorithms) or limit the htlc_maximum_msat of this public channel (which also indirectly applies to private channels).

https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair/pull/3248
reply
1 sat \ 4 replies \ @BlokchainB 1h

Yeah making it more efficient by using your unannounced channel to route a payment. This seems to limit the functionality of a private channel

reply
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 1h

No, I think you understand it wrong. They will not use your private channel to route other payments.
But will make private payments between 2 acinq peers to go straight between them. Is not any limitation, you can still make payments as usual.
You never used a LNbits? It would be the same as sending between 2 LNbits users.
So you will be able to send phoenix to phoenix user even with 0 fees.

reply
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlokchainB 59m

I made a comment on the PR let’s see if I get a response. maybe I am understanding this wrong

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 35m

Let us know when you hear back.

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 1h

I'm still not 100% sure if that's actually it.

reply
83 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 3h

Not sure, but I think they refer to the option to make like a private routing BETWEEN known Acinq users, I mean 2 phoenix nodes do not need to make a round travel of their sats through other public nodes if they are already linked to the same central Acinq node.

And that is a good thing, because public routes will be more expensive for the users and also to maintain.

Consider this option same like using a LNbits with multiple users.

Something like that tried Anton Kumadaroski (SBW wallet dev) few years ago. I can't find his video demo anymore, but was an interesting concept of "private routing".

reply