Etiquette for closing channels? \ stacker news ~lightning

pull down to refresh

3303 sats \ 20 comments \ @C_Otto 16 Dec 2023 lightning

Even though fees are extremely high, there's still the need to (coop) close channels. Even though I relaxed my "rules" (usually I close channels after 45 days or so if they don't perform at all), I still have several million sat stuck in channels that I'd like to close. As the channel initiator has to pay the coop close fees, this can be very costly.

Which fee rates are accetable for closing fees? If I close now, it's obviously very high - but the fees might be rising even more? Should I just wait (and suffer from having "stuck" sats)?

view all related items

170 sats \ 3 replies \ @zapomatic 16 Dec 2023

I think we are heading into a time where node operators are going to require more external communication from other nodes. Rather than treating all nodes that connect as the same, ones that have prearranged connections and operating standards will get preferential treatment and flow policies. Anyone blindly connecting without a published way to communicate could be at risk of getting closed.

I had an issue where someone who recently connected to me appeared to vanish (the edge was no longer found in mempool.space or anywhere else). They restarted tor, and, I think, added me as a peer via clearnet, and they came back as a connected node and the edge resolved. This resolution came after I emailed them because they had an email published on amboss.space.

In a case like yours, if I were the other node in the situation, I would hope we would have a communication channel open (DM, email, or keysend) so that I could address the performance issue before being closed.

But if they are anon and have no comms method... then I'd say the whole relationship is a liability.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @C_Otto OP 16 Dec 2023

Even though it's far from trivial, I (have to) assume that my peers are interested in the channel and care about its performance. Basic information like liquidity distribution and number of transactions is available even to the most inexperienced node runner, and tools exist that provide more detailled information. With over 100 peers I can't reach out and discuss basics everytime I want to access my sats.

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @zapomatic 16 Dec 2023

That's fair. How often are you in this situation? Are you normally closing multiple channels per day? or is this like a once a week finding a channel that isn't doing great kind of event?

I don't see anything wrong with you closing the channel (though it sucks for the recipient). It is your right as a node and nodes opening connections to you are signing up for the risk of channel closing cost. I haven't connected to you (yet) for instance because I know my node doesn't have enough balanced liquidity and performance to do the relationship justice. If I had a connection to you right now, in the state of things, I wouldn't be outraged if you were to close the channel since it would be my operational bad that got me into the state of malperformance.

But also, things happen and not everyone is professionally managing their node--maybe that's a reason not to connect to nodes that are more serious (if you can't take the heat, as they say)...

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto OP 16 Dec 2023

I'd say it happens roughly once a week, although I have a bit of a backlog right now.

1 sat \ 4 replies \ @nikotsla 17 Dec 2023

Like other people already said, I will wait and try to reach the noderunner, most of them understand the performance issue and will cooperate.

If we are heading to "big nodes, big channels, lower count of channels" and you want to be profitable, maybe a whitelist to connect to your node and have a "few" channels with knows/reachable noderunners.

I am not agree with this, but if the objective is to be a profitable node now, that's one path I could follow.

If we can push for some improvement, the MPP will solve part of the liquidity issue and how to use better.

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @C_Otto OP 17 Dec 2023

Why do they need to be told? Don't they already have the goal of running a healthy node, without me nagging them?

1 sat \ 2 replies \ @nikotsla 17 Dec 2023

Maybe there is some cost/benefit between close the channel automatically, or wait 24hs and "maybe" (hypothetical) they said, "I have some hardware/provider fail, in 2hs it's going to be online again" or "I need to remove liquidity because X but the crisis already pass and I push it again in Y time".

How much a cost to close vs wait a personal msg. Maybe we can add this kind bussines logic into, but I didn't put some thinking on it, maybe some keysend and wait a response, automatically...

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @C_Otto OP 17 Dec 2023

Ah. I'm talking about online and "active" channels. I already reach out to peers that are offline. As my rating spans a time period of at least 45 days, that already covers quite a lot of temporary issues.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nikotsla 17 Dec 2023

In that case, we are trying to predict the market, for my understanding, you can only put your node in a better position that the rest, but you don't know in advance what channel is better that other in the future with a good degree of certainty.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 16 Dec 2023

From my past experiences, you have always been quite upfront about your policies. I knew that if I connected with you, you'd possibly close the channel if liquidity just ended up being unused. Of course, it was a low-fee environment at the time and lots of people running nodes not knowing what they were doing. I want to believe that the ones who still run a node at this point in time, know what they are doing. And know that a coop channel close is always on the table. I'd say, close now. The lesson will be costly, but it'll be an actual lesson. Running a node is not a game. The opportunity cost of having unused sats is high.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @OT 16 Dec 2023

I would wait.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @bitcoin_collector 17 Dec 2023 freebie

LN was supposed to reduce onchain footprint, yet you have people who close your channels because they are not performing too well according to arbitrary metrics.

Closing channels: generate onchain transactions. Also is useless to try and keep balanced channels. This will "debalance" others channels.

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @02dc6a50c1 16 Dec 2023

deleted by author

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @ryu 17 Dec 2023

Welcome aboard, mini Darth. Give at least a week for Big Darth's exodus to set in, for courtesy and all that.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto OP 16 Dec 2023

I'm closing channels with a low rating as per https://github.com/C-Otto/lnd-manageJ/blob/main/rating.md. Keeping them open doesn't serve any advantage, because the sats don't move. The channel is well-managed (0 fees, lots of good inbound liquidity), but that's not enough. If my peer doesn't have attractive outbound liquidity, even the best managed channel is useless.

1 sat \ 2 replies \ @south_korea_ln 17 Dec 2023

Are you running a node? Are you running a routine node? In terms of channel management, I'd say Otto is probably one of the experts...

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @C_Otto OP 17 Dec 2023

Ah, that melts my heart! You just earned yourself a satoshi.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 17 Dec 2023

I just posted a question that does not apply to you as you are still running a node. But as I was writing out possible reasons to stop running a node, I wondered if any of those reasons would apply to you. More specifically, do you worry about regulations that might affect you, as a very well-known non-anonymous node runner, requiring LN node runners to acquire money transmitter licenses?

No need to answer if you deem this to be none of my business.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nemo 17 Dec 2023 freebie

deleted by author