10 sats \ 4 replies \ @C_Otto 28 Aug 2023 \ on: Are current lightning nodes killing new small nodes? bitcoin
I run c-otto.de, a rather large routing node. My funds are limited, which is why I have to carefully select peers, close channels, and make sure that the channels are actually used for routing. In most cases, this means having larger channels with larger nodes. Personally, I rarely open channels sized 20,000,000 sats (20 million) or less. It's not worth it, especially considering the open&close transaction costs.
However, I believe that there's a role for smaller nodes and other "mindsets". Maybe some smaller nodes (each connecting separate parts of the lightning network) collaborate and create a larger channel to a larger node (like mine)? In that case, a lot of smaller nodes can be reached with this well-connected larger node, which could be beneficial for all parties involved. I believe that, currently, there's not enough demand. The top nodes I see in my statistics are the usual larger ones: LOOP, bfx-lnd0/1, Kraken, WoS, ...
PS: As said in another comment, I can highly recommend using testnet to test and make first experiences. The mainnet approach is risky and expensive, especially if you also take into account software bugs, hardware issues, and - last but not least - your own mistakes.
@C_Otto I understand you. Wow 20 million SATS or above. That means you are in serious business!!! That is a lot of precious capital that you got deployed in lightning. I applaud you for contributing capital to bitcoin.
There is a lot more involved than I first thought. More risks involved than I thought. It is more a business than I thought.!!
Your idea is great of some smaller nodes cooperating and then linking to one larger node.
I mentioned above that I want to experiment myself and then teach others how to use lightning. I think people (some businesses and organizations) should understand the technology. They should know how it works.
My focus now is understanding how it is done, deep diving into it and teaching others eventually.
One of my main goals is to have small islands (there are 58 official small islands) connected. Connected with each other and being able to trade with each other. So I would love to see at least 1 node on each island connected with sufficient liquidity so that people on those islands can trade with each other.
On most small islands there are 9-10 banks and they dominate the financial rails. It would be better to have more nodes than just 9-10 nodes on each island.
This is just an experiment to understand how it works, and to see how this vision will play out.
Thanks for your advice to use testnet. I will also go that route.
reply
I don't see the advantage of having many nodes. Why don't you create a single node that can be used from all islands? The internet doesn't really care about your physical location, and with international payments (or, at least, routes through international nodes) it doesn't really make a difference to have the first/last hop close to your physical location.
reply
Ok. I understand. You don’t need 58 nodes you say? Only 1 node and all the wallets on the islands connect to that node?
So you don’t need a node on an island to connect that island?
Aren’t the islands then vulnerable that they can be disconnected?
Can all the people on all these islands just use the existing nodes?
reply
As I said, there's no need to take your physical location into account. In theory everyone on those islands could just create a channel to ACINQ (or any other node) and things should be fine.
reply