That's what I thought. But for that you have to be co-ordinated with 5 other nodes and all agree to open 2out+2in channels between them. I don't see this getting traction! But it's an interesting idea.
Yes, this is not an usual way to open channels but is possible to coordinate with other peers. On https://lightningnetwork.plus/ you can do such coordination. And Rings Of Fire also organize these kind of coordinated batch opening channels.
I think the size and fees need to be "static" in order to represent the "lines" of the structure in some way. If one node rise the fees a lot, maybe the structure is not valid anymore because one vertex disappear.
Would automating this method mean creating channels with people you don't know?
I would prefer a manual connection. I do not like automated opening channels.
That's what I thought. But for that you have to be co-ordinated with 5 other nodes and all agree to open 2out+2in channels between them. I don't see this getting traction! But it's an interesting idea.
Yes, this is not an usual way to open channels but is possible to coordinate with other peers.
On https://lightningnetwork.plus/ you can do such coordination. And Rings Of Fire also organize these kind of coordinated batch opening channels.
I think the size and fees need to be "static" in order to represent the "lines" of the structure in some way. If one node rise the fees a lot, maybe the structure is not valid anymore because one vertex disappear.
It's an interesting idea.
It would be interesting if you left a comment on his blog linking to the SN share!
I fw the sats to his SN account. He will notice.
Do you mean CCs? Aahah. He probably doesn't get notifications. forwarded zaps are converted into CCs!
NOTHING WRONG WITH CCs
right! You should've written ...
I fw the CCs to his SN account. He will notice.
instead of ...
🤠
it says sats... I do not make the SN rules
🤠🐛
it's the same
Why not start with tetrahedrons? They are simpler and more symmetrical.