pull down to refresh
30 sats \ 6 replies \ @nout 19 Feb
That graph makes lightning look much less reliable than it is. If you simulate random payments from any node to any node that's by far not matching the reality. There are many nodes that are just sitting there and are not actually source/target of any payments - and these are often the unreliable ones, etc.
reply
40 sats \ 4 replies \ @random_ 19 Feb
Hot take but that graph makes lightning look more reliable than it is because it uses multipath payments.
If you restrict the payment pairs to large well managed nodes, you introduce survivorship bias. Why shouldn't you measure any nodes ability to pay any other node in the network?
reply
30 sats \ 3 replies \ @nout 19 Feb
I'm not saying it's a bad measure - it's standardized and provides some insight.
The issue is that big majority will see this and think "lightning is so bad if my $100 payment fails one out of three tries."
reply
40 sats \ 2 replies \ @random_ 19 Feb
What gets measured, gets improved. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
#412708_
If it's any consolation, payment reliability is high in the pronet.
reply
127 sats \ 1 reply \ @random_ 17h
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 17h bot
https://xcancel.com/ambosstech/status/1892614576904016159
reply on another page
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Jestopher_BTC OP 19 Feb
Exactly right. It's an extremely conservative simulation!
As lightning becomes more capitalized and distributed, this metric will move higher.
reply
2 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 18 Feb
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @nikotsla 19 Feb
We, as a noderunners, need to be vigilant with this.
reply
6 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 19 Feb
The damage is already done.
The only thing we can do is educate gullible noobs to not fall for these fiat traps and reject use it.
As a node runner you can't avoid it or block it.
reply