Let's say history repeats like in 2017 and there's a fork. What happens let's say if one has sats on own node running bitcoin core and LND. Those sats on LND channels will not have the right to have the other sats on the newly forked chain? Can this be a risk for LN, like a lot of node runners closing all channels in the brick of a fork?
pull down to refresh
189 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 24 Sep
The fork is not based on the implementation (core/LND), a fork is based on consensus rules.
So the answer is that you should be able to close the channels on one or both forks, and you will receive whatever balance you had on the main chain of that fork.
There might be some confusion as to which fork your current LN wallet implementation is communicating with, and whether the hard fork introduces any interoperability problems with your current LN implementation.
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @88b0c423eb OP 24 Sep
Indeed LN seems very fragile in that scenario
reply
52 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 23h
Yes it does seem like there's some potential for chaos on L2, for example if your channel partner broadcasts and outdated state to the main chain of fork A but your node is only monitoring fork B
I would hope that if there was a hard fork that there'd be enough lead time for lighting users and developers to get ready for it
reply