LN nodes (with no or low minimums) I think are worth a channel:
(Search on 1ml.com)
Bitcoin Association of Hong Kong
with the only weapon a 'centralized' node has to harm the network - it's ability to quit and disrupt the flow of transactions it was facilitating. But in the event that happened, I feel like it would be about as disruptive as a difficulty adjustment. Nodes would be incentivized to swoop in and provide new liquidity as there would now be increased demand for it. Bitcoin is a marvelous, self-healing technology - even on its higher levels!
working in concert. But the spec for LN doesn't allow for a scenario where that central authority to prevent the creation of new channels. Additionally, it could be said that we are already well beyond the point where some group could coordinate to surveil all transactions, or even the majority. I don't have the math on this, but my gut tells me the actual possibility for surveillance is so low as to be virtually irrelevant. Certainly, the ability to censor is non-existent. So we are left /
So @Lot asked a question about centralization on LN and I think maybe I just brushed of their concerns. Allow me to expand on this subject:
Imagine a perfectly centralized LN. It would be a hub and spoke network with one node connected to all other nodes, and none of the other nodes connected to each other. What's the worst that can happen?
I suppose that node could surveil all activity, censor transactions, or go offline and shut down the network. This is also true of a small group of nodes /
I feel like CT thinks this is a temporary temper tantrum and we will all crawl back to CT. The truth is ,a majority of us used CT as another outlet for a hobby. Twitter is great for multiple sources for multiple hobbies you may have. However I really enjoy the Mastodon because this instance IS the #bitcoin community. I believe our feeds will be filled with constructive content focused on BUILDING and not lambos.
Great article by CFA Nik Bhatia explaining Bitcoin’s second layer and the potential it has for establishing time value and a reference rate for Bitcoin.
I'm pinning this list of nodes to my profile, so you can come back to it for suggested channels.
always the case, but on average, I'd suggest there is or will be a correlation between age and balance. If for no other reason than a poorly balanced or spent channel is more likely to be closed by either party over time, so there is a 'survivor bias' of sorts you can apply here.
Ok, that's enough on that for now, you have a few more tools in your toolbox for evaluating potential peers and hopefully that helps explain things a bit more.
favor rate fees over base fees for the perception of affordability.
We left open how we might gauge balance on these channels since we cannot see 'inside them', and that's a tough one. Plus, it will likely change frequently. It's a pickle. One thing you can do is look at the age of the channel itself and make a few assumptions. Today, if you are looking at an older channel (1 year+) you might assume it is more balanced than say a channel opened more recently. Of course, this isn't /
The average point of sale transaction in the United States is something like $7 bucks (Can't remember source on that, correct me if I am wrong, but it's small), so you should also consider what kind of transaction you are trying to route. If you were connecting, say Daimler and Maersk, you'd want large capacity channels that would favor flat base fees, while if you were connecting uncle Joe with the 7-11 down the street, you need enough capacity for a six-pack and some smokes and would likely/
it would only cost 1.1 sats (1100 millisats), meaning the relative payment spread between nodes is 6200 millisats. But imagine the payment you are trying to make is much smaller. Say you only want to transfer 10 satoshi. Then the base fee of fahrenheit451 becomes a bigger portion of the fee than the rate would be. So considering base fee / rate fee is important when you begin projecting the future value of Bitcoin. /
fee is 2 sats and the rate is .000053 sats. On TheHub's side, it is 1 sat and .000001 sats, respectively. So if you wanted to use this channel to send a 100,000 sat payment through fahrenheit451 to TheHub (and on to someone else), then you would pay a base fee of 2 sats plus a rated fee of 5.3 sats, for a total of 7.3 or 7300 millisats (as the native expression of value in LN divides satoshis into increments of 1000). If the payment came from the other direction (TheHub to fahrenheit451, then /
and fee rate are also important, as you'll want to account for extreme high and low fees as well as the ratio of base to rate. How this works is a base fee is a fee charged no matter the amount transferred, and a rate fee is a percentage fee covering the total amount transferred. Let's look at their channel with 'TheHub', which is one of their two largest capacity channels (click 'top capacity' to sort the list). This channel has a capacity of 50,000,000 sats. On the fahrenheit451side, the base/
Each of these metrics are important to consider when selecting a peer to connect to, but we can still dig deeper. Above the public key, there are a few tabs, click on 'Channels'. You see, just having a bunch of channels doesn't matter if they aren't connecting 'economically viable' routes. So we need to consider who they are connected to. You can now sort the channels in a number of ways. Capacity is an important indicator, but won't tell for sure whether the channel is balanced. Base fee /
Notice below that where they have 218 channels connecting 196 nodes. That's quite a lot. In fact, if you glance to the right, you'll see they are ranked 47th in capacity and 52 in channel count. Other factors influencing their 'Node Rank' (a 1ml device, not an official thing), include how old the node is (1 being oldest), the relative growth (30 days rolling), and availability (or uptime based on signals received from the node). /
say, top capacity, and scrolling down the list a bit. Let's go down to a node called Fahrenheit451
Click on it to bring up the node overview. You can see in the upper left-hand that the capacity (at this time) is almost 1,400,000,000 sats. That doesn't mean that the node operator has 14 BTC, just that the total of outbound and inbound capacity equals 14 BTC. Could be they have very little outbound (owned BTC or 'local balance) and a whole lot of inbound ('remote balance') pointed at their node/
connect there, don't get me wrong, but the real opportunity lies in connecting what you might call the second and third tier of nodes to each other and to big, unbalanced nodes. Think of yourself as a plumber looking at a spaghetti of tubes - some flow nicely, but others are clogged. If you can unclog the tube, and get the water flowing again, you can charge for that service. But you still need to dig deeper to really pick the winners. So how we will do that is by clicking into a category /
coming online, newly established channels, a tor list and IPv6 list, then we get to some good data - top capacity and most connected nodes. As we can see, ACINQ is the boss hog right now (as an individual node), but the LNBIG series is cumulatively the 800 pound gorilla. The big boy at the top are mainly exchanges, processors like OpenNode and CoinGate and Bitrefill. But we don't want to only open to the top nodes for a couple of reasons. Mainly, everybody is doing it. It makes sense to /
and their channels may be private. There is no way of knowing this information, and that's a feature, not a bug.
Next, we have top stores (static list, paid promotion, I think), top locations (where the public IP of the node sits (could be a datacenter, not necessarily the actual location of the business or service), and top increasing capacity and channel count (7-day rolling).
Then you have updates for node and channel (not terribly useful for our purposes), then a list of new nodes/
I'm headed to Mars and I'm taking my Bitcoin with me.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!