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

<p>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. </p>

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

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-08T18:47:25.707Z
2018-12-08T18:47:25.707Z
Rene Pickhardt
<p>If I am wrong, please correct me.</p>

<p>If we simplify Lightning Network, it seems to work similar to <a href="https://programtheblockchain.com/posts/2018/02/23/writing-a-simple-payment-channel/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this simple <strong>unidirectional payment channel between two parties</strong></a> (although, Lightning Network is a <strong>bidirectional</strong>). </p>

<p>So we may <strong>simplify</strong> the process of a payment between two parties in <strong>Lightning Network</strong> as follows:</p>

<p>(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.</p>

<p>(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. </p>

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

<p>In a first view, it seems <strong>no need for "routing"</strong> process. </p>

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

<p><strong>P.S.</strong> I refer you to the Lightning Network website, where it's mentioned that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>"By creating a network of these two-party ledger entries, it is
  possible to find a path across the network similar to <em>routing</em> packets
  on the internet."</strong></p>
</blockquote>

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

<p><strong>(1)</strong> Doing like above approach? </p>

<p>Or </p>

<p><strong>(2)</strong> A and C create another channel between themselves <strong>without paying to B and without need for routing</strong> ?</p>

<p>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?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-27T18:49:23.897Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-27T18:59:43.840Z
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
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-27T19:25:45.280Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-27T19:34:06.323Z
@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?
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-27T19:44:21.897Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-27T19:47:28.793Z
@Pieter Wuille , Good, so, routing is unavoidable. Thanks
Questioner
<lightning-network><lightning-routing><micropaymentchannels>
Why do we need a "routing" process in Lightning Network?
Questioner
# Why do we need a "routing" process in Lightning Network?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-11-27)

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**](https://programtheblockchain.com/posts/2018/02/23/writing-a-simple-payment-channel/) (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?

**Tags:** lightning-network, lightning-routing, micropaymentchannels

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 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.  
> **username_0**: 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  
> **username_2**: 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?  
> **username_0**: @username_2 , 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?  
> **username_1**: 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.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 , Good, so, routing is unavoidable. Thanks  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-12-08. Score: 3

Even though username_1 username_1 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.


---

