reply on: Baby Stacker Corner #1 \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

9 sats \ 6 replies \ @siggy47 11 Jan \ parent \ on: Baby Stacker Corner #1 meta

I dont think so, but @k00b can tell us.

41 sats \ 5 replies \ @charonnakamoto 11 Jan

According to LighningNetwork.plus, it is 10M Sats. But this is probably mistaken as I can see a bunch of channels with lower liquidity than that.

9 sats \ 4 replies \ @siggy47 11 Jan

I am certain that is not accurate. If you just check the Amboss link below, it looks like the smallest channel is a bit less than 17k sats

41 sats \ 3 replies \ @charonnakamoto 11 Jan

In the logs, when I try to open a 540K sats channel, I see

'FailedToOpenChannel. 'received funding error from [private details from my node] err=chan size of 0.00540000 BTC is below min chan size of 0.01000000 BTC'

So, I guess the minimum channel size must be 1M sats.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @charonnakamoto 12 Jan

1M minimum channel size confirmed, as I was able to open a channel with that amount. It must have been set recently as I can see that the small channels are in the 10K range.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @charonnakamoto 11 Jan

Minimum channel size should be a default metric in all lightning applications that facilitate the opening of channels. AlbyHub does this! ThunderHub doesn't. Only LightningNetwork, plus, bothers to try giving this data. Amboss and 1ML don't. Something basic is being missed out here by these guys

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 11 Jan

It does help prevent future headaches