pull down to refresh

77 sats \ 7 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 4h \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
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?

write
preview
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