From decker.christian at gmail.com  Mon Jan  1 17:47:53 2018
From: decker.christian at gmail.com (Christian Decker)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 18:47:53 +0100
Subject: [Lightning-dev] General questions about channels
In-Reply-To: <5A48207D.3010804@AndySchroder.com>
References: <5A360843.5060706@AndySchroder.com>
	<878tdzj2wb.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <5A432D1E.60902@AndySchroder.com>
	<5A433685.3050202@AndySchroder.com>
	<R_CX5URkzhEg5wMt5qhUl-vSP7y5TjWwbJEyxslwlZ2083ndvRRhZAHAMO13BuaCYqF2qeOfbWgyDKRrLJjWBaX5YYZ4rnpHHdaCUVb653c=@protonmail.com>
	<5A433D40.9020805@AndySchroder.com>
	<RP2P4CthKmiaMQpmj9ilqLy2b-lu57bpYm-BZ9nQs3gpeCKTHG-1WymDGYAH3n5tFU_kajdo5rwZCFFJwQ22R9XKnI-RGqCxlcAZ3x52Ajo=@protonmail.com>
	<CADPKye3KmY+xOsninaw3_BXgYi-rHoCMSBOR25J7-=gah3Fe7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<0mRpF6YNsI8VWWnlVJIKF1juOXp2EKBFap23S74mi2pljbPGcgnVAFh8kM__EUgzPpNgYBZW5CMP85vto0x1hdDvvksrWBYGTxvMCBtexg8=@protonmail.com>
	<5A4682DF.6020109@AndySchroder.com> <87mv1z3j2d.fsf@gmail.com>
	<5A48207D.3010804@AndySchroder.com>
Message-ID: <87k1x131yu.fsf@gmail.com>

Andy Schroder <info at AndySchroder.com> writes:
> I understand that you have to be in agreement with your direct peers. So 
> you don't really care about what agreements others in your route may 
> have in place? I would think that you would choose not to route through 
> hops that violate your capacity limit.

I'm failing to see why I'd care about a remote channel's capacity, aside
from it being large enough to cover the amount I want to transfer. As a
participant routing through a channel that has a higher capacity I do
not incur any additional risk than from a smaller channel, since the
payment is guaranteed to be atomic. In the contrary one could argue that
a higher capacity channel has a higher probability of having sufficient
capacity in the desired direction to forward my transfer.

Maybe I'm failing to see something? I always interpreted the limit as
purely self-defense on how much value I'm confident enough to keep in a
channel.

Cheers,
Christian