How do businesses like Kraken deal with the "burden" of operating a LN node, e.g. paying on-chain fees, unexpected force-closes, off-chain fee configuration, implementation bugs, ...?

  1. Bitcoin businesses already have to pay on-chain fees
  2. With chain fees being so low, the difference between a coop close and a force close is just the tied up capacity, which is a very small amount of value for a large business.
  3. Just speaking for myself, I think using the one reasonable routing fee for all your channels makes the most sense. Actively managing which peers you open channels with seems more impactful than actively managing the routing fee rates.
  4. Opening a GitHub issue, or ideally contributing a fix!
reply
31 sats \ 3 replies \ @C_Otto 2 Aug

..., liquidity allocation, peer selection, hardware resource usage, private channels, offline peers, tor connectivity issues, ...

reply
  1. Putting more capacity towards peers that "prove" themselves great routers, closing channels that are "unproductive".
  2. Running experiments with peer selection, especially using betweenness centrality measures.
  3. Hardware resource usage is negligible, personally I had a node with hundreds of channel on a retail i5 laptop. Any mid-range server could probably do thousands of channels.
  4. Private channels can be expensive for a routing node to have, I think they're really best for full-fledged LSPs who are charging the end-user wallet for the private channel.
  5. IMO a day offline is too long, close the channel.
  6. I think it would make sense to have both a clearnet and a tor node.
reply

When we're already at it ... I would like to hear Pierre Rochards thoughts on fractional banking in custodial Lightning nodes. Spicy topic, I know.

reply

Not your keys, not your bitcoin. Using a custodial Lightning node with a small amount of value is low risk, but don't use it as your long term savings solution.

reply