pull down to refresh

28 sats \ 2 replies \ @elvismercury OP 4 Jan \ parent \ on: Channels mostly_harmless
Yeah, the available tech is definitely a driver of the popular metaphors.
When you're not getting what you need from a relationship, is that because you have insufficient inbound liquidity (standoffishness, maybe) or does the other person have insufficient outbound liquidity (withholding) or maybe their channel fee is too high or yours is?
I like the 'standoffishness' mapping. Mainly I like to think about things that I control, that might bias toward more inbound, vs things I can't. Pulling on this thread, in the past, in person, I know I had a very imposing demeanor, which sent a message that I was not someone it was okay to engage with. Part of that was an accident, part of it was on purpose. Eventually I decided that it was a bad idea, that it was killing my inbound, and I began making efforts to knock it off.
My digital persona underwent a similar journey, now I think on it.
Probably one can have too much inbound capacity, but it's usually not a problem in practice as far as I can tell.
write
preview
this territory is moderated
27 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 4 Jan
Probably one can have too much inbound capacity, but it's usually not a problem in practice as far as I can tell.
There is a cost to opening channels, if we want to continue the metaphor. Your inbound liquidity may come at a great cost to you, while (possibly) simultaneously aiding your network.
reply
27 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury OP 4 Jan
I hadn't even thought about the effects on the wider network, but that's totally true, e.g., Granovetter 1973 and Burt 2004 among a million others.
reply