From jvalente96 at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 16:12:38 2020 From: jvalente96 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_Valente?=) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 16:12:38 +0000 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Lightning Distributed Routing In-Reply-To: <3G48KsBdy8f5ovk3zNofxVhijOloLuyS4-ywi-gAEX1ZkAWZDuXEcxJ5YkV0ANlhKGU2kqg_FO_PrjM-5xsOuNK6Klw_pKFFcY6Pci8hVqo=@protonmail.com> References: <3G48KsBdy8f5ovk3zNofxVhijOloLuyS4-ywi-gAEX1ZkAWZDuXEcxJ5YkV0ANlhKGU2kqg_FO_PrjM-5xsOuNK6Klw_pKFFcY6Pci8hVqo=@protonmail.com> Message-ID: Hello ZmnSCPxj, Thank you for taking the time to read the paper and sending over some feedback, can't stress enough how important that is. I took a look at the `feeadjuster` plugin for C-Lightning and although it goes in the same direction as LDR in the sense that it allows for better routes by signalling channel balance availability. It does it through a dynamic fee adjustment though, where LDR is more explicit and goes one step further, directly sharing channel balance information. I'm not sure how these two solutions would compare in practice though but I imagine that sharing more information would give LDR a performance edge. Oh, and there's no need for a spec change. It could work as a separated LN overlay network. Completely agree on the false signalling idea, a node would not gain any more routing traffic by signalling a better fee or, in LDR's case, bigger capacity routes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: