> The issue is that big majority will see this and think "lightning is so bad if my $100 payment fails one out of three tries."

What gets measured, gets improved.  ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯

https://stacker.news/items/412708/r/random_

If it's any consolation, payment reliability is high in the pronet. 

I'm not saying it's a bad measure - it's standardized and provides some insight. 
The issue is that big majority will see this and think "lightning is so bad if my $100 payment fails one out of three tries." 

nout

Hot take but that graph makes lightning look more reliable than it is because it uses multipath payments.

If you simulate random payments from any node to any node that's by far not matching the reality.

If you restrict the payment pairs to large well managed nodes, you introduce 

. Why shouldn't you measure any nodes ability to pay any other node in the network?

lightning

Amboss CEO On Growth Of The Lightning Network, Tether (USDT) On Lightning

Jestopher_BTC

Hot take but that graph makes lightning look more reliable than it is because it uses multipath payments.

>If you simulate random payments from any node to any node that's by far not matching the reality.

If you restrict the payment pairs to large well managed nodes, you introduce [survivorship bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias). Why shouldn't you measure any nodes ability to pay any other node in the network? 