pull down to refresh
250 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 6 Jan \ parent \ on: What have ya'll learned since SN non-custodial transition? meta
Not sure. I think if all the nodes just had the single channel to SN and are not routing to other nodes, there should be very minimal impact on the broader lightning network. Channel capacity will just go back and forth between Stackers zapping each other.
If most of these nodes are routing to other nodes, then it's harder to predict what might happen.
But one thing I will say, SN is a huge source (in contradistinction to sink) for routing demand. On my routing node, which is connected to SN, every time I increase my inbound capacity to SN, it gets routed back almost immediately, so I almost never have any inbound capacity on that channel.
The node I use for zapping is different from my routing node. My zapping node has only one channel and that's to SN.
reply
I don't. My inbound capacity on my SN channel is sitting at some minimal number right now.
There are probably things I could do like loop more capacity through that channel, and thereby earn myself more routing fees, but my routing node was more of an experiment / personal learning project. I don't really intend to do any serious routing with it.
I would've loved to increase fees to use that channel, but I think you can only set the fee for outbound usage of your channels. Since the routing demand is inbound through SN, I can't deter that with fees unless I simply increase my fees on all the other outbound channels, which I don't want to do.
reply