So how can be improved the protocol to have less force closures. Yes, I know that most the fault is from each user, in which conditions they run their nodes. But something maybe could be improved in the protocol, so we can have less force closed channels.
Soon will be a fortune to pay for opening/closing channels.
I guess some force closures are due to subtle differences in how implementations handle disagreements on channel parameters, while others are due to node operators’ expectations not being aligned. I would expect both to naturally recede over time, as node operators homogenize expectations or learn to better check in advance whether they are a good fit for a shared channel, and implementations improve interoperability. I don’t perceive the protocol itself as a major source of force closures.
reply
I guess also, there were a lot of people that were just experimenting and dabbling with Lightning Nodes so that there was a large population of nodes that were just not well maintained. As implementations mature, less effort will need to be put into maintaining a node’s health, but also, the cost of operating a node in conjunction with the risk of having funds in a hot wallet will probably serve to dissuade ill-maintained nodes over time.
reply
Yes, I have the same "feeling" and from what I see/listen from many noobs talking with them, this is the main issue for these FC. Thanks for your insight.
reply