pull down to refresh

Wild concept. Kind of flips the scalability argument for lightning on it's head.
121 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 21 Jun
What do you mean? A channel that big could have easily done tens of thousands of big transactions in its lifetime, even if all the transactions went in the same direction.
reply
I just find it interesting, the idea that it's cheaper to close a channel than it is to rebalance depending on the capacity of the channel.
I wonder how that capacity relates to position and topology.
reply
No... there's no cause for re-balancing, that's what channel fees (particularly the new new negative fees) are for
The (technical?) founder of OpenNode went elsewhere not to long ago and the French retreated from the US, its also [REDACTED] to have that size in a hot wallet... there are much more likely explanations
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 21 Jun
They probably just found that the channel capacity wasn't necessary.
reply
This channel closed in September last year.