1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
|
Return-Path: <joseph@lightning.network>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF8808C7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 04:48:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com (mail-pa0-f42.google.com
[209.85.220.42])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9807913B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 04:48:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pawu10 with SMTP id u10so131413122paw.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 21:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=lightning.network; s=google;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to;
bh=QG+XdeaWkPhVg14yzcFUx92vxCVFyWSipuChEKFPfrk=;
b=XKJqzY0tSY4zvN1h2EKuyRrWBLDjqbREo5fp975ye9F2h7VhB80sVaKNQjaEJHjDTC
X47YtlvBRrPMVflCkWYHHVBsNXEYf3MVy5cxXUHvRvqNAxPsJWyeLf7uWW9pYd/HB2ad
vGcsiYxbQ6Ue+ZluXZjcy5GJKXdv5OWgviQ/w=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references
:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to;
bh=QG+XdeaWkPhVg14yzcFUx92vxCVFyWSipuChEKFPfrk=;
b=Dzy2dLnFEPMZgxPG5iuBwGLzqHhDdv8rRhSKGa0I7MbhIlncd7gkqtsHDeMi+0/BjA
IDjZPKXXRvwVj0XhgMaaCPnWKOba3jmee5lxj77BChsblEtIT6d4zBnO+gKdRBCZ68AX
WibLDknd66aXm3OUeAcUDF2HkyV0pf6oAWSG6q1fUfpItluZ8k49jtpP7Sw4pTCCFaE2
rhZrb7kS7phe6DDxL/vjKbqjzzy1z/Jg3RmML0c8Xs2sLdczli6+K6UT1BX0oHqLJOiD
IYZqn+UqvWxB62bqYedkphMfTljzLvNQxW2kyi4iTp8oNsUAKzJ0w+p3SL3dZ/8aXCL1
tWPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnBOzoZIoc0xHM8n0eAztd6Py4PSii1mpmRBKYkekOhmkDRxOCY0sh5HXAd46EjvUAkYf+v
X-Received: by 10.68.205.232 with SMTP id lj8mr41264922pbc.116.1439182123329;
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 21:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([209.141.33.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
bd5sm18107070pbb.85.2015.08.09.21.48.42
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 21:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 21:48:28 -0700
From: Joseph Poon <joseph@lightning.network>
To: Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150810044828.GC1758@lightning.network>
References: <CA+w+GKRPPcgCO0pBP2PjKGU49tWuBoF1vRJzY+4fWn71HOVDPw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDqV1NdHJZBmUWX3AxVYy6ErU7AB-wsWgGzbiTL1twdq6g@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKTLBWj6b4ppwrmnXb_gybYFcrX7haLBSdCnMaijy2An4w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpWPhYNh=g-ZXCsfe-aPq=N6NKSWKP9kr-KtPVrWAxB7Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAO2FKHsczkwwqO87cJFtxBp9JE=vf=GcxLx37GpRUkPq8VGHQ@mail.gmail.com>
<55C79FF0.8040100@thinlink.com>
<CAOG=w-skYq84=PtN45FB-dGoY1783Jz7K1T16e2JVGjLazWuyA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAO2FKHyNC6PT+i2pYo88eeb-wdkJdeVjmqzC=PetyF6yO=+Lw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOG=w-s9KsaPwveSpgdvsVTWUDV77YY7Em7NZGyxSQMMCccYSg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAO2FKFvDfzgeWew8SNAQAa2avRSRWWaqp_WL9igFogJw0L9GQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAO2FKFvDfzgeWew8SNAQAa2avRSRWWaqp_WL9igFogJw0L9GQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What Lightning Is
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 04:48:44 -0000
Hi Hector,
On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 09:48:41PM +0100, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Is the Lightning system limited in the number of hops there can be in
> the payment channel? I am looking at the initial Lightning slides
> presented in February and it looks like the locktime decrements by
> 1-day along each hop. So the more hops there are the longer my
> bitcoins are potentially locked up for?
The hops are limited to the time-value which the sender wishes to pay
and the minimum acceptable timeout between each hop. It should be
relatively cheap if you game it out, though (I don't forsee me opening a
1 BTC channel and being able to make $5 per month...)
1-day is used as a convenience. However, the time between hops should be
somewhat long, as the intermediate steps can be extended further when
you want to offload the HTLCs to others who have a channel open with
both counterparties. E.g. Alice sends a payment to Dave through Bob and
Carol. Bob has a channel with Carol and has an HTLC with it, but that
channel seems to be used a lot. Erin has a relationship to both Bob and
Carol, she can offload the payment so that the payment actually goes to
A->B->E->C->D. B<->C is now completely clear.
> > On Aug 9, 2015 1:15 PM, "Hector Chu" <hectorchu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In the Lightning network it is assumed that the balances can always
> >> be settled on the blockchain if any of the parties along the
> >> channel has a problem. What if the fee on the settlement
> >> transactions is not high enough to enter the blockchain? You can't
> >> do replace-by-fee after the fact. Do the fees always have to assume
> >> worst case scenarios on the Bitcoin fee market?
How do you send coins if you wanted to send funds below the current
IsStandard value? It should be no different. If your wallet can't send
funds below the IsStandard value on-chain today, then I don't think it
should be able to to in the future, right? If you send funds *at* the
minimum IsStandard value today, you're probably paying really high fees,
this is a problem that exists today.
--
Joseph Poon
|
