You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, a balance score of, say 1, can mean two things: either all the funds are on my side or on their side. Sorting channels by balance score is not currently useful or informative.
A balance score should illustrate balance in either direction.
A -1 to +1 score would illustrate balance in a specific direction.
-1 = all the balance is on my side
+1 = all the balance in on my peers side
0 = perfectly balanced
lndmanage uses this scoring system and it makes sense.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @seth586 there is one concern I have on your proposal.
With the balance score ranging from -1 to +1, you lose the ability to sort on your grids based on the balancedness of the channels. The current scoring mechanism, makes it easy to sort your most balanced channels easily.
Currently, a balance score of, say 1, can mean two things: either all the funds are on my side or on their side. Sorting channels by balance score is not currently useful or informative.
A balance score should illustrate balance in either direction.
A -1 to +1 score would illustrate balance in a specific direction.
-1 = all the balance is on my side
+1 = all the balance in on my peers side
0 = perfectly balanced
lndmanage uses this scoring system and it makes sense.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: