<p>Short answer: Such rule would not change anything people could split their funds across several nodes similar to LNBIG.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-31T22:37:30.853Z
2021-07-31T22:37:30.853Z
Rene Pickhardt
<p>Currently LN seems a bit centralized - few central, well funded nodes seem to route transactions and make profits. I was wondering if limiting the number of channels a node can open to a certain max number, would make the LN more decentralized, in a sense that big central nodes won’t be able to have hundreds of channels and the routing action will spread more evenly to the network. Does this make sense?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-31T22:35:32.277Z
Do you have any research results supporting your claims behind your question?
Rene Pickhardt
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-01T17:54:57.763Z
Absolutely not. Just wondering
jayt.dev
<lightning-network><lightning-routing><ln-opening-channels>
Would restricting channels to a maximum make LN more decentralized?
jayt.dev
# Would restricting channels to a maximum make LN more decentralized?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-07-31)

Currently LN seems a bit centralized - few central, well funded nodes seem to route transactions and make profits. I was wondering if limiting the number of channels a node can open to a certain max number, would make the LN more decentralized, in a sense that big central nodes won’t be able to have hundreds of channels and the routing action will spread more evenly to the network. Does this make sense?

**Tags:** lightning-network, lightning-routing, ln-opening-channels

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Do you have any research results supporting your claims behind your question?  
> **username_0**: Absolutely not. Just wondering  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-07-31. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Short answer: Such rule would not change anything people could split their funds across several nodes similar to LNBIG.


---

