Lightning stuff
This commit is contained in:
parent
89e9a3d485
commit
aea65f59a7
1 changed files with 63 additions and 32 deletions
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,9 @@
|
|||
# Lightning Node Management
|
||||
|
||||
My umbrel node is almost in sync with the blockchain so soon I will be able to put my new lightning node into use. These
|
||||
past days I have been consuming a lot of material on how to prepare the lightning node, with the idea in mind of making
|
||||
a successful routing node.
|
||||
My umbrel node is almost in sync with the blockchain so soon I will be able to
|
||||
put my new lightning node into use. These past days I have been consuming a lot
|
||||
of material on how to prepare the lightning node, with the idea in mind of
|
||||
making a successful routing node.
|
||||
|
||||
These are the topics that I have in mind:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -13,21 +14,27 @@ These are the topics that I have in mind:
|
|||
|
||||
## UPS for uptime
|
||||
|
||||
I have learnt through different sources that it is important to have a "good reputation" in order to have more chances
|
||||
of peers connecting to my node. Now, reputation is rather fuzzy, and varies from simply people observing your node on
|
||||
1ML or similar pages, to a variety of rankings and scores such as BOS, Lightning Terminal Tiers, 1ML node rank, etc.
|
||||
I have learnt through different sources that it is important to have a "good
|
||||
reputation" in order to have more chances of peers connecting to my node. Now,
|
||||
reputation is rather fuzzy, and varies from simply people observing your node
|
||||
on 1ML or similar pages, to a variety of rankings and scores such as BOS,
|
||||
Lightning Terminal Tiers, 1ML node rank, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
One of the components of most of these scores, and more fundamentally, a strong signal of node quality, is uptime. Plain
|
||||
and simple, never go down, and if you do, don't spend much time down.
|
||||
One of the components of most of these scores, and more fundamentally, a strong
|
||||
signal of node quality, is uptime. Plain and simple, never go down, and if you
|
||||
do, don't spend much time down.
|
||||
|
||||
In order to ensure that my node does a good job in terms of availability, I have been studying the possiblity of using a
|
||||
UPS. In general terms, an outage is the only relevant (as in both probable and impactful) event that could put my node
|
||||
down.
|
||||
In order to ensure that my node does a good job in terms of availability, I
|
||||
have been studying the possiblity of using a UPS. In general terms, an outage
|
||||
is the only relevant (as in both probable and impactful) event that could put
|
||||
my node down.
|
||||
|
||||
I have been reading up a bit on UPS. By design, they are designed to only provide a few minutes of availability to
|
||||
securely put services down in the machine that is going to go dry. But since both Banky and my router are super low
|
||||
consumption devices, I'm actually hoping that a decent UPS could provide a handful of hours of activity if needed.
|
||||
Notice I'm also including the router in the equation because, obviously, if the internet connection goes down, keeping
|
||||
I have been reading up a bit on UPS. By design, they are designed to only
|
||||
provide a few minutes of availability to securely put services down in the
|
||||
machine that is going to go dry. But since both Banky and my router are super
|
||||
low consumption devices, I'm actually hoping that a decent UPS could provide a
|
||||
handful of hours of activity if needed. Notice I'm also including the router in
|
||||
the equation because, obviously, if the internet connection goes down, keeping
|
||||
Banky on is not enough.
|
||||
|
||||
So I need to:
|
||||
|
|
@ -36,29 +43,34 @@ So I need to:
|
|||
- Price
|
||||
- Battery capacity
|
||||
- That it has two sockets.
|
||||
- Confirm that, in the event of a house-level power outage, the router still keeps connecting to WAN as long as it has
|
||||
electricity. It would also be good to check with a building/street level outage, but I think simulating that goes
|
||||
beyond my current capacities.
|
||||
- Confirm that, in the event of a house-level power outage, the router still
|
||||
keeps connecting to WAN as long as it has electricity. It would also be good
|
||||
to check with a building/street level outage, but I think simulating that
|
||||
goes beyond my current capacities.
|
||||
- Measure empirically how long does the setup last until the node disconnects.
|
||||
|
||||
## Channel Opening Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
Once I get funds in my lightning node, I need to start opening channels. As I do it, they will all be unbalanced, with
|
||||
all the funds sitting in the local side. I'll have to compensate for that since I don't expect anyone opening towards me
|
||||
initially (I'm not gonna showcase myself all over the place to get people's attention). But I'll discuss that in another
|
||||
section.
|
||||
Once I get funds in my lightning node, I need to start opening channels. As I
|
||||
do it, they will all be unbalanced, with all the funds sitting in the local
|
||||
side. I'll have to compensate for that since I don't expect anyone opening
|
||||
towards me initially (I'm not gonna showcase myself all over the place to get
|
||||
people's attention). But I'll discuss that in another section.
|
||||
|
||||
So, I need to open channels to people. The key questions are:
|
||||
|
||||
- With who?
|
||||
- How many sats to put into each channel?
|
||||
|
||||
Regarding channel size: generally, the larger, the better. It helps reduce the impact of onchain fees, offers more
|
||||
opportunities for keeping things balanced and also enables larger transactions to go through. The downside of making one
|
||||
channel large is the opportunity cost of having a few smaller channels, which increase the variety of nodes.
|
||||
Regarding channel size: generally, the larger, the better. It helps reduce the
|
||||
impact of onchain fees, offers more opportunities for keeping things balanced
|
||||
and also enables larger transactions to go through. The downside of making one
|
||||
channel large is the opportunity cost of having a few smaller channels, which
|
||||
increase the variety of nodes.
|
||||
|
||||
From what I've been reading, anything smaller than 1M sats gives yields more trouble than benefit. So I will keep that
|
||||
as a minimum size for the channels I open. Question is, how big should the bigger channels be?
|
||||
From what I've been reading, anything smaller than 1M sats gives yields more
|
||||
trouble than benefit. So I will keep that as a minimum size for the channels I
|
||||
open. Question is, how big should the bigger channels be?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm copying a table from the statistics page in 1ML, on 13/01/22:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -72,16 +84,35 @@ I'm copying a table from the statistics page in 1ML, on 13/01/22:
|
|||
| 95 | 14.995.600 |
|
||||
| 99 | 50.000.000 |
|
||||
|
||||
So, it's clear that going above 0.1 BTC is a pretty rare exercise. I'm planning on allocating 0.2 BTC in total during my
|
||||
first experiments, so I think I will distribute them in the following way:
|
||||
So, it's clear that going above 0.1 BTC is a pretty rare exercise. I'm planning
|
||||
on allocating 0.2 BTC in total during my first experiments, so I think I will
|
||||
distribute them in the following way:
|
||||
|
||||
| How many channels | Capacity per channel |
|
||||
|-------------------|----------------------|
|
||||
| 1 | 5.000.000 |
|
||||
| 4 | 2.500.000 |
|
||||
| 5 | 1.000.000 |
|
||||
| 10 | 10.000.000 |
|
||||
| 3 | 2.500.000 |
|
||||
| 7 | 1.000.000 |
|
||||
| 11 | 19.500.000 |
|
||||
|
||||
The missing half-million will be used as petty cash for fees.
|
||||
|
||||
The next question is: who to connect to?
|
||||
|
||||
Intuitively, the goal of any routing node intending to place itself in the
|
||||
network should be to find a place in the graph that's poorly connected but has
|
||||
a big demand for moving funds. Since reading the future is impossible, and
|
||||
there is no history of transactions available for anyone to make forecasts on,
|
||||
it's impossible to assess the demand.
|
||||
|
||||
Thus, the only thing one can try is to put itself between different nodes that
|
||||
are relevant in terms of traffic, but are not properly connected. This means
|
||||
that simply connecting to the largest nodes won't work, because they are
|
||||
already very well connected between themselves. I think that, instead, I should
|
||||
try to connect to both some of the large nodes, but also to a few smaller ones.
|
||||
Given the channel capacity strategy that I present above, it naturally follows
|
||||
that to have a few, large channels for large nodes and many, smaller channels
|
||||
for smaller nodes.
|
||||
|
||||
Ok, this is as far as my intuition goes. Now I'm going to do a bit of research
|
||||
to try to find out if there are any other factors I'm missing in my thinking.
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue