Author: ZmnSCPxj 2022-10-11 23:57:42
Published on: 2022-10-11T23:57:42+00:00
The author of the post refutes the idea that rebalancing is not exploitative, and uses an analogy of leaving free widgets on a table which can be taken by anyone. The author claims that identities are easy to create and therefore, there is no limit to how many widgets one can take. In the same way, with Lightning Network's htlc_maximum_msat, there is no limit to how much liquidity one can receive. However, forwardable peerswaps is considered a recycling scheme for sats as it returns the sats sent out previously, which replenishes the stock of liquidity back to whoever gave them in the first place.The post also argues against the claim that the Lightning Network only benefits net senders. It explains that for net receivers to exist in a currency with a fixed supply, there must be net senders. Rebalancing would not even be necessary if there were no net receivers. The post suggests that businesses and merchants who use Lightning to pay their employees, shareholders, and suppliers would not be net receivers. However, since the world has not fully transitioned to using Bitcoin over Lightning, there are still people who hold money in Lightning and trade them for other currencies on other networks, serving as interfaces to legacy currency systems. This implies that they are net receivers on the Lightning Network. Lastly, the post notes that Alex Bosworth had already expressed this idea before, suggesting that it should be implemented sooner. By implementing forwardable peerswaps on a wide scale across the network, it will initiate such swaps and lead to net receivers getting more inbound capacity on the network. Despite the good privacy that the payment protocol gives to senders, unpublished channels remain popular, implying that there are many net senders that are simply not seen.
Updated on: 2023-06-03T10:12:17.132578+00:00