pull down to refresh

30 sats \ 6 replies \ @nout 19 Feb \ on: Amboss CEO On Growth Of The Lightning Network, Tether (USDT) On Lightning lightning

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.

write
preview
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 simulate random payments from any node to any node that's by far not matching the reality.

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
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."

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_ 20 Feb
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 20 Feb
reply
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