110 sats \ 4 replies \ @Murch OP 22 Feb 2023 \ parent \ on: AMA: Ask Murch Anything bitcoin
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.
write
preview
50 sats \ 3 replies \ @Murch OP 22 Feb 2023
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
2 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 22 Feb 2023
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
215 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch OP 9 Oct
As we discussed in yesterday's Optech Recap, package relay, TRUC transactions and Pay-to-Anchor well hopefully what lightning channels with zero fee in the commitment transaction in the next year or two. This would remove a huge source of channel closures.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 9 Oct
Yes, I was listening that episode! Really good stuff.
reply