You are holding HTLCs open on all nodes along the route. HTLCs are a limited resource and those nodes are not being compensated for the use of this resource or for the increased risk of force closures.
You make a valid point that they can change this setting but this brings unrelated externalities. HTLC delta was included in the protocol to allow a grace period for node runners to reconcile failed payments on chain. Your use of this resource for economic purposes muddies the waters. I can understand why routing nodes are upset about this. It externalizes costs to the entire network.
A different design would resolve this conflict. What if both parties could use some sort of bearer asset that represented a potential lightning transaction? This asset could be issued by an always-online service, locked to the recipient, transmitted via any data channel, and redeemed when the recipient comes online, at which time they issue a LN tx to convert it to self-custodied sats. Sort of like a paper claim to some bitcoin. Like physical cash but electronic. Electronic cash! We can workshop the name. But what if it had even better privacy properties than lightning? I think we would really be on to something! What do you think??
vnprc
npub16vz…mhgd
2023-10-25 00:13:38
in reply to nevent1q…h3x9
Author Public Key
npub16vzjeglr653mrmyqvu0trwaq29az753wr9th3hyrm5p63kz2zu8qzumhgdPublished at
2023-10-25 00:13:38Event JSON
{
"id": "1916475554345daa5d6af28e44fd002904257903248d8899d7f1d38c52584a8a",
"pubkey": "d3052ca3e3d523b1ec80671eb1bba0517a2f522e195778dc83dd03a8d84a170e",
"created_at": 1698185618,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c7f3b611a8c29ffb8a740d6ba2470005c7189155b0650d3182d548ba695e4a21",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"84916f6cb58285ef4e0ff7fdbc818614a1e338457fc1eb245472512231084428"
],
[
"e",
"dcfbc2c0e8f0a8b771b5598e9660d9fd9558369ec5ba07a18f405c6d010cb3f2"
],
[
"e",
"c63276f6172900eb300429b924053b93ef1389e02bd2dbfb504bf4659ce7b3eb"
],
[
"e",
"79912d4d7eccc7662e0400e3a7a6b3f53374359cfd49e696fbc922e9e37561c9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"2183e94758481d0f124fbd93c56ccaa45e7e545ceeb8d52848f98253f497b975"
],
[
"p",
"5be6446aa8a31c11b3b453bf8dafc9b346ff328d1fa11a0fa02a1e6461f6a9b1"
]
],
"content": "You are holding HTLCs open on all nodes along the route. HTLCs are a limited resource and those nodes are not being compensated for the use of this resource or for the increased risk of force closures.\n\nYou make a valid point that they can change this setting but this brings unrelated externalities. HTLC delta was included in the protocol to allow a grace period for node runners to reconcile failed payments on chain. Your use of this resource for economic purposes muddies the waters. I can understand why routing nodes are upset about this. It externalizes costs to the entire network.\n\nA different design would resolve this conflict. What if both parties could use some sort of bearer asset that represented a potential lightning transaction? This asset could be issued by an always-online service, locked to the recipient, transmitted via any data channel, and redeemed when the recipient comes online, at which time they issue a LN tx to convert it to self-custodied sats. Sort of like a paper claim to some bitcoin. Like physical cash but electronic. Electronic cash! We can workshop the name. But what if it had even better privacy properties than lightning? I think we would really be on to something! What do you think??",
"sig": "1237f0088395865e243cc80b00871938d11081d62b29b392e6d75646edbe0ea05aeb5f7a9ace31c7acdd615c5fc3e62a1da3c7bfe95078ac222ba2d156d6b571"
}