Author: Christian Decker 2018-01-01 17:47:53
Published on: 2018-01-01T17:47:53+00:00
In a discussion about routing through hops that violate a participant's capacity limit, Christian argues that he does not have to care about the capacity of remote channels as long as it is enough to cover the amount he wants to transfer. He explains that routing through a channel with higher capacity does not incur any additional risk compared to a smaller one, since payments are guaranteed to be atomic. In fact, he believes that a higher capacity channel has a higher probability of having sufficient capacity in the desired direction to forward his transfer. Christian sees the capacity limit as a self-defense mechanism for how much value he is confident enough to keep in a channel.
Updated on: 2023-05-24T17:20:47.668612+00:00