4 ms·

> Routing in the Lightning network is an open problem in computer science if you're trying to say that routing in lightning is an instance of traveling salesma

> Routing in the Lightning network is an open problem in computer science if you're trying to say that routing in lightning is an instance of traveling salesman, you're not only wrong - routing is actually shortest path problem, but even if you were right, your statement that TSP somehow makes the system unworkable is simply false in light of the fact that businesses like USPS and DHL and countless more delivery companies exist and are profitable. > Payments aren't peer to peer, they have to be routed through intermediaries by this metric nothing on the internet is peer to peer, because packets are routed through intermediaries. > how to do that is basically impossible to figure out, except if you just have a handful of giant hubs you can route through yes, there will be hubs, large and small and there will be clusters of interconnected local meshes and there will be users routing however they wish through the system instead of taking the cheapest most connected path. if you say something is impossible to figure out - you need to back up that claim with something, anything. what if i told you, you were lied to by skeptics and scammers, trying to sell their shitcoins, and you need to put away your biases for just a minute and invest a little time to see, if what they were saying is actually true?

user-the-name 5y ago
> if you're trying to say that routing in lightning is an instance of traveling salesman, you're not only wrong - routing is actually shortest path problem I am not. I am saying we don't have the map that we need to solved the shortest path problem, and we have no way to get that map. > by this metric nothing on the internet is peer to peer, because packets are routed through intermediaries And we have routing protocols to do so for the internet. We do not have one for the Lightning network that works at scale. > yes, there will be hubs, large and small and there will be clusters of interconnected local meshes and there will be users routing however they wish through the system instead of taking the cheapest most connected path. No, there will only be a small number of very large hubs. Nothing else actually works in practice.
- keymone 5y ago
  > I am saying we don't have the map that we need to solved the shortest path problem, and we have no way to get that map. of course we do, connectivity graph and updates to it are gossiped all the time and each node has imperfect representation of it. > we have routing protocols to do so for the internet. We do not have one for the Lightning network that works at scale. we do, lightning nodes do that all the time right now. > there will only be a small number of very large hubs. Nothing else actually works in practice. again, you're making a statement without backing it up by anything. your entire argument boils down to: if a node can't have perfect information about connectivity graph, then it can't perfectly route payments. and you're right, that statement is true, but it is irrelevant because imperfect routing through imperfect connectivity graph is fine and works great.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    > of course we do, connectivity graph and updates to it are gossiped all the time and each node has imperfect representation of it. Yes, that is exactly the part that does not scale beyond a toy network, and for which there is no solution.
    - keymone 5y ago
      maintaining a perfect and complete connectivity graph - hard. maintaining imperfect and incomplete connectivity graph - much less hard. be careful, maybe you're invested into something that becomes irrelevant if LN works, in which case you might want to be less rigid in your thinking and follow the developments more closely to pull out or risk losing your investment. because LN already works: tens of thousands of nodes and channels, millions of dollars in the network and growing at healthy rates.
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        And the bigger the network are and the more transactions there are, the more important a complete connectivity graph is, and the more failed transfers you will get if you have an inaccurate graph. However, the bigger the network is, the harder it is to actually gather an accurate graph. Thus, it doesn't scale.

user-the-name 5y ago

> if you're trying to say that routing in lightning is an instance of traveling salesman, you're not only wrong - routing is actually shortest path problem I am not. I am saying we don't have the map that we need to solved the shortest path problem, and we have no way to get that map. > by this metric nothing on the internet is peer to peer, because packets are routed through intermediaries And we have routing protocols to do so for the internet. We do not have one for the Lightning network that works at scale. > yes, there will be hubs, large and small and there will be clusters of interconnected local meshes and there will be users routing however they wish through the system instead of taking the cheapest most connected path. No, there will only be a small number of very large hubs. Nothing else actually works in practice.

keymone 5y ago
> I am saying we don't have the map that we need to solved the shortest path problem, and we have no way to get that map. of course we do, connectivity graph and updates to it are gossiped all the time and each node has imperfect representation of it. > we have routing protocols to do so for the internet. We do not have one for the Lightning network that works at scale. we do, lightning nodes do that all the time right now. > there will only be a small number of very large hubs. Nothing else actually works in practice. again, you're making a statement without backing it up by anything. your entire argument boils down to: if a node can't have perfect information about connectivity graph, then it can't perfectly route payments. and you're right, that statement is true, but it is irrelevant because imperfect routing through imperfect connectivity graph is fine and works great.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  > of course we do, connectivity graph and updates to it are gossiped all the time and each node has imperfect representation of it. Yes, that is exactly the part that does not scale beyond a toy network, and for which there is no solution.
  - keymone 5y ago
    maintaining a perfect and complete connectivity graph - hard. maintaining imperfect and incomplete connectivity graph - much less hard. be careful, maybe you're invested into something that becomes irrelevant if LN works, in which case you might want to be less rigid in your thinking and follow the developments more closely to pull out or risk losing your investment. because LN already works: tens of thousands of nodes and channels, millions of dollars in the network and growing at healthy rates.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      And the bigger the network are and the more transactions there are, the more important a complete connectivity graph is, and the more failed transfers you will get if you have an inaccurate graph. However, the bigger the network is, the harder it is to actually gather an accurate graph. Thus, it doesn't scale.