{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3l","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3l","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-09-25\n📝 Original message:\nGood morning aj, and Rene,\n\n\u003e * you're providing a way of throttling payment traffic independent of\n\u003e fees -- since fees are competitive, they can have discontinuous effects\n\u003e where a small change to fee can cause a large change to traffic volume;\n\u003e but this seems like it should mostly have a proportional response,\n\u003e with a small decrease in htlc_max_msat resulting in a small decrease in\n\u003e payment volume, and conversely. Much better for stability/optimisation!\n\nThis may depend on what gets popular for sender algorithms.\n\nSenders may quantize their payments, i.e. select a \"standard\" value and divide all payments into multipath sub-payments of this value.\n\n* Simplifies the computation of base fee when using a min-cost solver.\n* Simplifies the design of splitting/merging decisions if not using a min-cost solver.\n* Improves privacy once we have PTLCs (if most senders use the same standard value, it is much harder to figure out if two sub-payments, with approximately the same standard quantum, belong to the same payment or not).\n\nIf so, then we expect a large discontinuity for the `htlc_max_msat` vs `htlcs_sent` curve around whatever selected quantum there is.\nIf you set `htlc_max_msat` below this quantum your expected number of payments forwarded will drop to near 0, but a little above that and you might very well saturate since all payments are quantized anyway.\n\nAt least fees gets you basic economics of supply and demand, and is a natural throttle in all markets, including liquidity markets.\n\nRegards,\nZmnSCPxj"}