[Lightning-dev] Fwd: Re: Routing & Beacons
rusty at rustcorp.com.au
Mon May 2 23:27:56 UTC 2016
laurentmt <laurentmt145 at gmail.com> writes:
> Thanks for the information. Indeed, it raises questions but this is
> exactly why I find the subject so interesting :)
> WRT the update of routing tables, let me try to summarize my
> understanding with this scenario:
> 1/ Landmark nodes periodically send a message to their neighbours (every
> 30s ?). This message initiates a new temporal frame (symbolized by
> counter embedded in the message and sequentially increased by the
> landmark node).
Technically, the landmark would ve a channel; it's just easier to select
on that basis (since channels exist in the blockchain, you can prove it
existed prior to landmark selection).
But your idea of temporal framing is new to me.
I had considered that we simply limit a single hop to advertising every
30 seconds, and you only re-broadcast if it's the best. That requires
maintaining a little state for each hop you rebroadcast.
> 2/ When a node receives the first message associated to a new temporal
> frame for a given landmark, it waits for a delay before forwarding the
> message to its own neighbours (it gives a chance to receive the same
> message from a better route).
Hmm, I'm not sure how to calibrate that delay though? If everyone is
delaying it's not clear that you'll hear about the better route, is it?
> After this delay has elapsed, the node computes the best route to the
> landmark node and forward the message (information defining the temporal
> frame + best route to landmark node) to its neighbours.
> 3/ Every node repeats the same process (step 2).
> When the process has completed, every node knows the best route to/from
> a given landmark.
> When a node needs to send a payment, the receiver sends her its best
> routes to each landmark node. Therefore the sender is able to compute
> the best route to reach the receiver and onion routing is possible.
s/to each landmark/from each landmark/
> Random remarks / questions:
> - Agreed that the "base+per-satoshi" fee model creates a difficulty to
> define the best route.
> I don't know if I'm right, but I see the base fee as a way to say "I
> don't want to transfer amounts lower than X satoshis" (the base fee
> makes them economically unviable).
> So, as you wrote, a solution may be a set of nominal values and the
> forwarding of a set of best routes (a route for each range of amounts
> between 2 nominal values).
Yes, I think so.
> - A shower thought: with this model, fees seem conceptually associated
> to the node and there's no distinction related to the direction of the
> payment (sending or receiving).
> A different model would be to associate fees to individual payment
> channels (with a different fee defined for sending and receiving on this
Yes; if landmarks are channels, then I think it falls out naturally.
There's a related question on how fees are collected: simplest is that
the node pushing the HTLC into the channel collects the fee. This
implies that they unilaterally set the fee for that direction.
But I wonder about weird fee games where one side charges far more than
the other; are they completely independent or do they negotiate? My gut
feeling is that it all works out: if the You->Me direction is popular
today and you're making a mint, I'll be doing well from the Me->next-hop
> It means that for a given landmark, a node would forward 2 best routes
> (for sending/receiving payments to/from the landmark).
> That may be useful to cope with unbalanced channels because it allows
> the node to signal that, for instance, it's ok to receive payments on a
> given route but sending payments is not encouraged.
Definitely need asymmetry for balancing.
> - Would it be useful to have simulations ? (that may be an interesting
> side project on my hand).
This could well offer some insight.
Anthony Towns (added to To) did some simulations, but other than a
simple YouTube video I'm not aware of any published results.
More information about the Lightning-dev