pull down to refresh

@C_Otto
217,767 sats stacked
stacking since: #14089longest cowboy streak: 2
bio
261 items
by
for
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto 17 Nov \ on: My 1 month pleb Lightning Node update lightning
How much did you pay for onchain transactions?
What's going on with bfx-lnd0?
440 sats \ 3 comments \ @C_Otto 16 Aug lightning
What's going on with bfx-lnd1?
555 sats \ 8 comments \ @C_Otto 6 Aug lightning
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @C_Otto 24 May \ parent \ on: Get in Line for SNZ 9 meta
Does it matter to be featured?
Who is 03e6871fe33c45df778f2adadb795ee838892e809ff8daaabf11053be4190c5be1?
515 sats \ 13 comments \ @C_Otto 17 May lightning
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @C_Otto OP 2 May \ parent \ on: Parallel channels are a mess - a rant lightning
Interesting. Can you point to where this is described in the spec?
3 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto OP 2 May \ parent \ on: Parallel channels are a mess - a rant lightning
Two or more lightning network channels connecting the same pair of nodes.
Parallel channels are a mess - a rant
1918 sats \ 5 comments \ @C_Otto 1 May lightning
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto 29 Mar \ on: Routing Node History | SNL #165 meta
I'm not "zero fee routing". The name change was an April fools joke.
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto 27 Mar \ parent \ on: My name's Marko, Software Developer at Primal AMA
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.
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @C_Otto 26 Mar \ on: My name's Marko, Software Developer at Primal AMA
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.
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto 23 Mar \ parent \ on: Smallest Routing fee ever for me! lightning
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.
221 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto 23 Mar \ on: Why is a sweep transaction needed when force closing lightning
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).
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto OP 23 Mar \ parent \ on: c-otto.de routing node history with a bit of data lightning
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.
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto OP 23 Mar \ parent \ on: c-otto.de routing node history with a bit of data lightning
No. Given the non-anonymous aspect of my node (a questionable choice...) I don't see the point of restricting clearnet traffic.
121 sats \ 1 reply \ @C_Otto OP 23 Mar \ parent \ on: c-otto.de routing node history with a bit of data lightning
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.