pull down to refresh
298 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 4 Jan \ on: Channels mostly_harmless
You've got me thinking about how people always adopt current technologies as metaphors for our psyches. Presumably, that's because it's too hard to think about directly.
When you're not getting what you need from a relationship, is that because you have insufficient inbound liquidity (standoffishness, maybe) or does the other person have insufficient outbound liquidity (withholding) or maybe their channel fee is too high or yours is?
How do you parse those?
Is it helpful being able to list out the options in this way?
I look forward to all the armchair amateur psychologizing using bitcoin analogies in the years ahead.
Yeah, the available tech is definitely a driver of the popular metaphors.
When you're not getting what you need from a relationship, is that because you have insufficient inbound liquidity (standoffishness, maybe) or does the other person have insufficient outbound liquidity (withholding) or maybe their channel fee is too high or yours is?
I like the 'standoffishness' mapping. Mainly I like to think about things that I control, that might bias toward more inbound, vs things I can't. Pulling on this thread, in the past, in person, I know I had a very imposing demeanor, which sent a message that I was not someone it was okay to engage with. Part of that was an accident, part of it was on purpose. Eventually I decided that it was a bad idea, that it was killing my inbound, and I began making efforts to knock it off.
My digital persona underwent a similar journey, now I think on it.
Probably one can have too much inbound capacity, but it's usually not a problem in practice as far as I can tell.
reply
Probably one can have too much inbound capacity, but it's usually not a problem in practice as far as I can tell.
There is a cost to opening channels, if we want to continue the metaphor. Your inbound liquidity may come at a great cost to you, while (possibly) simultaneously aiding your network.
reply
I hadn't even thought about the effects on the wider network, but that's totally true, e.g., Granovetter 1973 and Burt 2004 among a million others.
reply