0

If I am wrong, please correct me.

If we simplify Lightning Network, it seems to work similar to this simple unidirectional payment channel between two parties (although, Lightning Network is a bidirectional).

So we may simplify the process of a payment between two parties in Lightning Network as follows:

(1) the sender and recipient just need to create a channel and deploy the contract and then the sender puts the recipient's address in the contract as recipient.

(2) Then any agreed number of off-chain transactions will be done between sender and recipient such that the sender's address for each mico-payment will be verified by recipient.

(3) Eventually, a settlement will be done via an on-chain transaction, by which the recipient will receive the total amount the contract.

In a first view, it seems no need for "routing" process.

So, can we now ask that why do we need a routing process for performing a payment in Lightning Network?

P.S. I refer you to the Lightning Network website, where it's mentioned that:

"By creating a network of these two-party ledger entries, it is possible to find a path across the network similar to routing packets on the internet."

Note: The payment channels are composable, meaning that If A and B have a payment channel, and B and C have another, then A can pay C through B. But the matter is that there is a fee incentive for intermediaries. Now the question is which one is more affordable?

(1) Doing like above approach?

Or

(2) A and C create another channel between themselves without paying to B and without need for routing ?

So, the answer of necessity of need for a routing process in Lightning Network is dependent on affordability of paying to one or multiple intermediaries instead of paying for a new direct channel without intermediary?

  • 4
    The point of LN is that it is not just a 2-party channel; it is a network of interconnected channels, so that if A is connected to B, and B is connected to C, A can pay C. – Pieter Wuille Nov 27 '18 at 18:49
  • Yes, exactly, such that channels are composable: _If A and B have a payment channel, and B and C have another, then A can pay C through B._But the matter is that there is a fee incentive for intermediaries. Now the question is which one is more affordable? (1) Doing like above approach? Or (2) A and C create another channel between themselves without paying to B and without need for routing ? Thanks – sas Nov 27 '18 at 18:59
  • That's not the question you started out with. So why are you asking two different questions? Also you do know that creating a channel costs you on chain transaction fees, right? – Jannes Nov 27 '18 at 19:25
  • @Jannes , Yes, I know that, but as I asked, which one is affordable ? paying for a new channel? or paying for an intermediary? If paying for intermediary is more affordable, then we need for a routing process. So, it's related to my first question: Why do we need for a routing process in LN? The answer is dependent on affordability of paying to one or multiple intermediaries instead of paying for a new direct channel without intermediary? – sas Nov 27 '18 at 19:34
  • 3
    It's not just about affordability. Creating a channel requires locking up on-chain funds. As they are a finite resource, it's infeasible to expect a channel between any two participants that want to interact through Lightning. – Pieter Wuille Nov 27 '18 at 19:44
1

Even though Pieter Wuille has sad most of what was needed in the comments I will summarize this as an answer.

Technically you could open a payment channel with every other person instead of creating a network with the ability to route. The drawbacks are that your total bitcoin amount has to be distributed over several channels and will be very small in each channel. Also creating channels with everyone would need way more on-chain transactions which would not directly help to reduce the load to the blockchain.

--> Routing is needed to really reduce the amount of onchain transactions needed and to have higher liquidity per channel available.

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.