Does it matter to be featured?

Lots of traffic.

A convoluted bitcoin mixer?

Oh, yes. There's a lot of churn...

I agree.

Interesting. Can you point to where this is described in the spec?

Two or more lightning network channels connecting the same pair of nodes.

I'm not "zero fee routing". The name change was an April fools joke.

How do you know about my backup strategy? I'd say it's rather safe, but it's not connected to Primal nor my browser in any way. Please don't assume that I'm doing anything wrong. And if you do, please give me the option to acknowledge your warning once and for all.

Greetings! Could you please remove the constantly showing "1" badges? Thanks :)

Sometimes also on "Premium".

I guess I should not complain about a free service, though.

The LN internally uses 1/1000th of a sat, but when you close a channel, you only get full sats. Having lots of micropayments (or fees) worth <1sat can add up, though.

Here's a good blog series that explains the details: https://ellemouton.com/posts/htlc-deep-dive/

If you forward some HTLC and the outgoing channel is force-closed, your peer may claim those funds only by revealing the pre-image. If this happens after the timeout and if you didn't sweep the HTLC funds by then, this is still possible. However, if you forwarded the HTLC and failed the HTLC back upstream (towards the sender), you effectively lost the HTLC amount. To avoid this, you should sweep the HTLC funds as soon as they time out.

However, in other situations (when you're receiving HTLCs, or when looking at the non-HTLC funds in a channel) there isn't a pressing need to sweep the funds. In fact, I patched my lnd to avoid costly sweep transactions. This isn't necessary anymore, as lnd now uses a better approach to sweeping (slowly ramping up the fees, taking the associated risk into consideration).

Performance is fine. Shortly before the new compact database format was introduced I had issues because of the database file size, but this has been resolved years ago. I think ZFR would have worked with this updated version of lnd.

As far as I know you can't switch implementations while retaining your channels and/or node ID. I'd rather not start from scratch, a lot of how LN works is reputation based.

No. Given the non-anonymous aspect of my node (a questionable choice...) I don't see the point of restricting clearnet traffic.

I closed a few channels with bfx-lnd0 with almost all of the liquidity on their side. Having those parallel channels doesn't serve any benefit for me, I still have plenty of inbound liquidity from bfx-lnd0. This way I could get a few sats (to be used elsewhere) while reducing the risk of force closes and other channel related costs at a time with very low on-chain fees.

I'm using the rating system implemented in lnd-manageJ, see https://github.com/C-Otto/lnd-manageJ/blob/main/rating.md for details. If a peer has a very low rating (ignoring the first 45 days of a new channel), I consider closing.

See #922319

Yeah. I think a lot of this is due to private node runners establishing nodes, doing some rebalancing (at a loss). I'm not sure, though.