Andy Schroder <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
