pull down to refresh

CLN does not always take the most economical route (default lightning-pay), doesn't it?
Route randomization means the payment algorithm does not always use the lowest-fee or shortest route. This prevents some highly-connected node from learning all of the user payments by reducing their fees below the network average.
Weird idea. How can a routing node learn user's payments when it cannot know where the payment originated and its final destination? Glad I am using LND.
reply
Interesting. Is paying 6x the price worth it, though?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 7 May
Lightning txs are usually so cheap that I think it's worth it
reply
CLN also factors in risk based on the amount of liquidity locked up vs. lock time.
Wonder what the capacities and lock times are along both routes OP mentioned. And min/max htlcs.
reply
  • c-otto.de to ACINQ: 100M capacity, time lock delta 99
  • c-otto.de to lnd v0.18.0-beta.rc1: 2.5M capacity, time lock delta 99
  • lnd v0.18.0-beta.rc1 to ACINQ: 4M capacity, time lock delta 100
reply
curiouser and curiouser
reply
different graph from the payee's POV? unsupported required features?
reply