pull down to refresh
153 sats \ 1 reply \ @nullcount 25 Nov \ parent \ on: x.com alex bosworth: "We can onboard a billion/year to LN using just batching." bitcoin
No need for individual miners to build their own templates if Antpool is in the middle with a stratum server!
I'm expecting the actual distribution of LN publicly-routable liquidity to resemble the distribution of hashrate in 10ish year (assuming LN continues to approach market saturation). Maybe a couple dozen uberbank nodes will manage 90% of public capacity and 1 or 2 nodes manage +50%
Those top nodes will certainly use tx batching everywhere possible, just like exchanges do. As economic nodes, they will excel in aggregation of blockspace demand.
Just as Mining Pools have been known to create block templates that censor, likewise Uber-Bank LN nodes will likely "whitelist", and "blacklist" recipients. Like Email, it might become EVEN MORE DIFFICULT to run a sovereign node and reliably receive payments/messages (especially if you are seeking privacy no-KYC, or are sanctioned individual).
If payments are onion routed, how do the uberbank nodes know which routes to censor?
If uberbank nodes refuse to onion route, won't this push everyone else to close the uberbank channels and open channels with nodes that are well connected and have high uptime enough to route well ("centralized" if you like), but respect onions?
Thus bankrupting the uberbank routers and helping the cypherpunky routers.
ie, doesn't paid onion routing solve this with the right game theory and market incentives?
iiuc onions, the censoring uberbanks know the incoming and outgoing payments, and so the previous and next hops. Can they build up a whitelist/blacklist to fail routes that the censor doesn't like? It's worth thinking about more, and I probably will. But my gut feeling is no.
reply