What is LN Node Ranking?
Posted about 2 years ago by LN+
Node Rank is calculated predominantly based on the capacity of nodes a given node is connected to. To a smaller degree, the formula also includes other public parameters available on the gossip network, and proprietary parameters available through LN+. Based on feedback, I intend to refine the Node Rank over time to be more precise and cover for special situations (ex. duplicate channels).
Node Rankings are also named after metals:
If you're a routing node you should aim for a Titanium (5) rank or higher. If you're a regular LN user, aim for a Mercury (4) rank. If you're using LN only ocasionally for small transactions (ex. tipping, chatting, podcasts, paying for content, etc.) you should be good with a Copper (3) node.
The easiest way to increase your Node Rank is to open channels as large as you can afford to nodes that are Titanium (5) or higher. However, opening multiple relatively large 2-3 M channels to several nodes will increase your Rank more than opening a single 10 M channel.
Connecting to a higher level node is not always the best strategy. Your choice depends on your goals. For example, if you're expecting to be a profitable routing node, you may need to look for a niche that other nodes haven't already filled. If you're a frequent user of the network, you will benefit from directly connecting to nodes you send and receive from regardless of the level of those nodes. Also, remember that connecting to lower Rank nodes is beneficial for the network overall as it decentralizes it and makes it more resilient against attacks or single node failures.
Node Rank is not meant to be a precise evaluation of LN nodes, mostly just a quick indicator that is hopefully useful for the community. Let me know what you think of it, and if you think it's worth keeping it around.
thisiswhereyousendit wrote about 2 years ago
I guess the aim of this ranking system is to encourage more use of this website's platform. That's cool. Just don't put any stock in the rating it spits out.
BTC_Freedom wrote about 2 years ago
It came to me, that it might be also useful to add Node rank into search/filter criteria? And/or also add lowest and highest participant's rank into Swaps info, so one can see it all in main page swaps overview and doesnt need to click and open details of swap. Thanks again! :)
SaylorMuwn wrote about 2 years ago
Would be cool if amount of daily traffic can also be displayed.
TheStrongHODL wrote about 2 years ago
satsophone wrote about 2 years ago
It's displayed on node profiles under the node's alias (large title). Also on the node index pages. Finally, it's on the Swaps when people apply.
I intentionally don't want to give this rank too much attention until it gained wide approval from the community.
satsophone wrote about 2 years ago
Atari Basic wrote about 2 years ago
Less Relevant wrote about 2 years ago
I'm a Rank 4 / Mercury Node with 24,500,000 sats and 30 channels. I have 15 :-) ratings and 0 :-( ratings. I'm verified, an opener, passionate, trustworthy, honourable, social, inquisitive, and generous.
Of my 30 open channels, my peers are:
- x02 10 Iridium (avg 1,840,000,000 sats / 350 channels = 6,300,000 avg channel size)
- x01 09 Platinum (avg 1,264,000,000 sats / 386 channels = 3,300,000 avg channel size)
- x02 08 Gold (avg 238,000,000 sats / 121 channels = 2,000,000 avg channel size)
- x05 07 Silver (avg 74,300,000 sats / 40 channels = 1,900,000 avg channel size)
- x13 06 Tungsten (avg 36,600,000 sats / 24 channels = 1,300,000 avg channel size)
- x03 05 Titanium (avg 49,100,000 sats / 34 channels = 1,400,000 avg channel size)
- me 04 Mercury (avg 24,500,000 sats / 30 channels = 815,000 avg channel size)
- x01 04 Mercury (avg 24,300,000 sats / 28 channels = 890,000 avg channel size)
- x01 03 Copper (avg 8,000,000 sats / 11 channels = 730,000 avg channel size)
- x02 02 Iron (avg 3,500,000 sats / 6 channels = 625,000 avg channel size)
When compared to my single Mercury peer, my rank aligns well a the Mercury level. What appears inconsistent, however, is the Tungsten level. The average sats and channels for those at the Tungsten level are both lower than the sats and channels for the Titanium level. The average number of Tungsten channels is lower than both Titanium and Mercury.
Granted, my sample size is small.
What confuses me is that as a 04 Mercury...
- I have more sats than 8 nodes that are ranked higher than me
- I have more channels than 12 nodes that are ranked higher than me
- I have a larger average channel size than 5 nodes than are ranked higher than me
- For 5 Tungsten nodes, I have more sats, channels, and avg channel size (all three are better)
You are likely comparing other metrics to determine your ranking. And I understand why you might not want to reveal what metrics you are measuring (to reduce nodes gaming your system). That's all fair and reasonable.
For example, you might measure how many channels were forced closed by a node. I have forced closed two channels. But in fairness, I waited more than two weeks for those offline nodes to restore service, and I commented in the swap chat asking the failed node if they will return before initiating a force close. If you do reduce rankings due to force closes, I feel like I'm being punished when I don't consider myself to be the dishonourable party.
Speaking of dishonourable, I've experienced swap participants who have closed their channels before the agreed channel duration, and yet they retain badges like Trustworthy and Honourable.
Take @BMO (0262743de9531ad442fbe4e18a28f4f72814b840ada9ba2775010e6aad656fc50a) for example. @BMO closed all 47 channels from 19 swaps on Nov 7, 2021. Most of the swaps @BMO joined were for one year agreements, yet @BMO closed all channels after only 45 days and still bears the Trustworthy and Honourable badges.
Perhaps you should have a process that dings a user for not honouring the agreed channel duration, while exempting nodes that wait more than one week before performing a force close.
I realize this was long and apologize. Again, I appreciate this site and service. Thank you.
μpleb wrote about 2 years ago
ThunderHorse wrote over 1 year ago
LN+ Admin wrote over 1 year ago
TBC-LND wrote about 1 year ago
Anonymous372 wrote about 1 year ago
BitShirt wrote 12 months ago
LatentFire wrote 11 months ago
LN+ Admin wrote 11 months ago
Yes, nodes will go down in ranking if they become smaller in terms of channels.
LatentFire wrote 11 months ago
Maracaibo wrote 9 months ago
Another nice to have would be a good explanation of how rebalancing should be done, I mean about setting fees before and after.
LN+ Admin wrote 9 months ago
You should commit to the swap agreements to ensure you don't get bad votes, and thus you people continue trusting you.
Regarding rebalancing, ideally all participants should set their fees to zero, do the rebalance and then immediately set the fees to the desired level. The problem is new channels are monitored by other nodes and if you lower your fees, they may immediately take advantage of the available capacity and rebalance themselves through your node. This is a risk you need to take. If you create a dual funded channel with BOS (select 2 in the swap shape), your channel is balanced from the beginning.
HODLmeTight wrote 5 months ago
LN+ Admin wrote 5 months ago
Patatuf wrote 5 months ago
domesticblend wrote 3 months ago
Please login to post comments.
Posted 1 day ago
Posted 10 days ago
Posted 11 days ago
Posted 14 days ago
Posted 16 days ago