pull down to refresh
Well, hard to say. I would say certainly more laid back into hammock maintenance possible, but some runners might take the extra mile to make the extra buck. It probably depends on
- your motivation + time-available
- your curiosity and desire for tinkering
If both of the above is not a personal preference, todays tools like Autofees and Auto-Rebalancer in LNDg offer a hands-off "hammock" approach.
Certainly less fire-drilling compared to 2-4 years ago.
Totally concur on your love for LNDg. I'm a big fan and also contributing to their code wherever I feel I can add value.
Yeah, oral would help, but imo not enough. We need to also stresstest What we're actually trying them to proof: Cognitive abilities, adapting to change, thinking on their heels, creative thinking, abstracting is the way to go.
Memorizing, summarizing, visualising stuff? Phew, I dunno.
Keeps reminding me of two things:
- The cab driver test in London was the hardest test. They throw two street names at you, you had to explain, street by street, turn by turn, how to get from A to B. Guess how many use that knowledge today?
- One internet meme I remember: I'd love to have a version of the olympics, where every athlete could go full bonkers on steroids and drugs. Let's see how high humans can really jump
Umbrel hybrid setting is just exposing your home IP + Tor.
It's better than Tor only for the aforementioned reasons, but be aware it's allowing aproximate geolocation, and you better be on top or beef up your home network security.
+1 @DarthCoin for calling what it is.
And here are some very good step-by-step guides about how to run a LN node behind a VPS tunnel, @Hakuna wrote these excellent guides: https://github.com/TrezorHannes/Dual-LND-Wireguard-VPS https://github.com/TrezorHannes/Dual-LND-Hybrid-VPS
For what it's worth, those guides run not only on a $6/month VPS as I've outlined in the guides, but I heard (not verified) that it even runs on the freebie tier Oracle and MSFT Cloud offers. It doesn't consume any of the expensive infra stuff: CPU / storage / memory, it's mostly commodotized traffic.
But yes, you probably need to KYC, or at least give some credit card input. However, if you shy away from costs, $0 and you'll have public obfuscation of your IP, reliability and speed - the key pillars of the Lightning Node Runner. 🏃
I think you're encountering a huge systemic earthcrack in the education system, which starts to build up and challenge every single cognitive test hoop we've established over the past centuries. And you're not going to be able to plaster that crack on your own with what used to work before.
I'm talking about this with some of my friends for a while, and this story is a phenomenal canary:
TLDR; a talented engineering student from Columbia University exposes the Mag7 Tech Interviewing process with an almost perfected AI interviewing ammunition belt. He secures all the job offerings, but instead of taking those, exposing that way of interviewing in the new world doesn't work anymore.
How do you mitigate this? Flying every interviewee in for face2face offline interviews? How is that proving they are up to the world of engineering in 5 years, 3 years even? How do you mitigate smart glasses, who'll boost every applicant to have a helper PhD in their pocket / ear / on their nose?
Possibly the better, but more challenging way: Question the way you weed out great talent, support the ones who struggle adopting the new ways, because in reality, this wave cannot be stopped anymore.
I know you're not going to revolutionise the education system on your own. But my current hypothesis is, what got us here isn't going to get us there. We all have to think more expansive how we're going to show empathy, support and provide value in this totally new predicament of AI.
Final thoughts: Is it fair to put them into oral assessment? Probably, yes. As a one off. Perhaps with a ceiling and a floor for the grades.
How about doing a repetition, and everyone (who can, ) can use an AI Pocket helper. And perhaps this will create some interesting results. At least it'll stir up an interesting discussion in the classroom, how they all think about this?
I'm not suggesting the cryptography is broken, but having an ongoing SSH root tunnel exposes unnecessary attack vectors. Terrapin was just the recent one, and I'm in favor to not have my ssh in the open at all.
Yes you can FW restrict the access to specific ip ranges, but then you're back into the configuration and security overhead you intended to avoid in the first place.
Read my summary, I think it's a valid option, but I wouldn't want this for my production routing node running for 4 years 24/7
I use Tor just in case my country bans bitcoin. It would be cool to use a public IP, I'll probably just rent a VPS and use it as a proxy. What are your thoughts on TunnelSats?
AMA
or alternatively, check our FAQ
ssh -N -R 8080:localhost:8080 root@vps
Valid points, however everyone needs to make their own choice of convenience vs speed & security. As I'm putting my own sats on the line, I err on latter.
Summary
For maximum security and speed: As said wg would be my recommended choice, and we have it in productions with many VPNs and clients across the globe. And following that guide isn't that much PITA, but actually a great linux learning experience. I'd say this is a good asset if you're into running a node in any case.
For simplicity and quick setup: SSH tunneling can be a decent option, especially for temporary or less sensitive use cases.
In case your channel close are still pending, you may want to check out my guide at The Guide where your Lightning close-transaction can't get the channel closed
Let me know where you get stuck and I can help out further
You can check the integrity of your SCB file for your node with the following command below*
And yes, it triggers a signal to your peers (who are currently online) to FC your channel, which in the standard setup transfers the channel sats from your side to your LND onchain wallet. Which you will be able to access with your 24 words.
Always note that this should be something like a last resort, cause it's incurring costs for everyone. Better to mitigate risk by having good hardware, a UPS, and not mess with your production system if avoidable.
https://node-recovery.com/ is a bookmark worthy ressource, too.
*Test and verify chan-backup file
lncli verifychanbackup -h
NAME:
lncli verifychanbackup - Verify an existing channel backup.
USAGE:
lncli verifychanbackup [command options] [--single_backup] [--multi_backup] [--multi_file]
CATEGORY:
Channels
DESCRIPTION:
This command allows a user to verify an existing Single or Multi channel
backup for integrity. This is useful when a user has a backup, but is
unsure as to if it's valid or for the target node.
The command will accept backups in one of four forms:
* A single channel packed SCB, which can be obtained from
exportchanbackup. This should be passed in hex encoded format.
* A packed multi-channel SCB, which couples several individual
static channel backups in single blob.
* A file path which points to a packed single-channel backup within a
file, using the same format that lnd does in its channel.backup file.
* A file path which points to a packed multi-channel backup within a
file, using the same format that lnd does in its channel.backup
file.
OPTIONS:
--single_backup value a hex encoded single channel backup obtained from exportchanbackup
--multi_backup value a hex encoded multi-channel backup obtained from exportchanbackup
--single_file value the path to a single-channel backup file
--multi_file value the path to a multi-channel back up file
Worth noting that the backup'ed channel.db shouldn't be used to come back online, but just to use chantools to do the SCB with your channel.db instead of your SCB file.
Coming back online with an outdated channel.db imposes great risk of losing funds via penalty transactions.
Binance's node doesn't look dead to me mate. It's a feature, they just go unannounced and hence have a sort of a white-list approach to only tell you their details by opening a peer-connection to you (or by getting in touch).
This way you can gatekeep 100% who opens to you, avoiding the usual way of just upping your min-capacity
I have no clue about CLN sorry. But here's a suggestion, log the context details on CLN's Github as an issue, there are plenty of people in the know.
Mate, you've been one of my earliest channels, always routing and cooperative. Some small zaps here from me, and I'm certain that all the penalty transactions will be returned. That's what kept me so excited about lightning all the time, we're all head2head in competition (at least the routing nodes), but never have I encountered a routing peer who didn't care, share their work and experience just like you did, so others can benefit.
In which industry do you find something like that? I'll wait!
So first off thanks for sharing the post-mortem. Keep us posted. And keep your hunger, we're still so early, and starting from scratch still gives you an early start.
All the best, stay strong!
Got you.
Yeah, that works obviously as well. If you swap out / in via Boltz, or with your other channel-peers using peerswap, the principle outcome is the same. The difference is, peerswap doesn't charge what Boltz does. So it's ~300sats onchain fee, at least temporarily, since peerswap doesn't have a fee-feature build in yet.
Glad that you got your 2 channel closures resolved!
The two in Thunderhub, are they showing up in
lncli pendingchannels? What might also be is that there are anchors of those channels still pending, or more likely they got stolen and your LND didn't notice it. You could identify missing anchors as the 330sat sweeps still pending at lncli wallet pendingsweeps. If it's anchors, you may see those 330 sat not at limbo, but stolen.To mitigate, you have 3 choices:
- just ignore them
- if they are not stolen: force-collect those anchor sats. In the current fee-environment, this is going to be unprofitable. Hence LND doesn't autosweep them, since it's not making any sense economically. But you could RBF the anchor transaction up to like 25sats/vbyte now and
--forcethe bump (like in Solution 6 above) - if they are stolen: try broadcasting the raw-tx of the anchor-tx (like in Solution 5 above). Best case, your LND will notice that those anchors are stolen and they'll disappear from your pendingsweeps list
Cheers.
Yes, it's always a consideration based on who has more sats on the line. If you have contact to the peer, who in this case has a higher risk due to more sats staled, you could just forward this guide
Or, if it's a big node / LSP and they don't care, or it's LDK and they can't CPFP (yet), you may just run it as a learning investment.
Please consider reading the appendix if and before doing your CPFP, might save you some sats.
fee_adjuster.pycan be run with--debug, resulting in no write changes, but just giving a terminal output onfeeConfig.json