That's the part I'm confused about. LND nodes make up about half of the network at least, don't they? (too lazy to go look up the exact number right now)
If everyone experienced what I did, wouldn't this be an even bigger issue?
I do have one hypothesis. There were 2 LND upgrades this week. The first upgrade fixed the main bug, but it introduced a new bug in doing so. Something which effected syncing to the graph. I don't think there was more than a 24 hour period between the first update and the emergency second one. I happened to update during that short window, and attempt to sync my node.
I think most nodes probably skipped that middle update, going straight from 0.15.2 to 0.15.4. The middle one, 0.15.3 isn't even available anymore because of how bad it was.
So, there were probably very few of us who tried upgrading during that time-window, and we're the ones making up that 10% loss in channels this past week.
I had about 25 channels too.... all gone :(
What was bad about 0.15.3? My understanding was that the issues had always existed?
reply
The main issue they were trying to fix had existed. It sounded like the release with the fix included a Pull Request which introduced a new bug that affected syncing. This second bug was easy to isolate and fix, but it caused a lot of trouble for 24 hrs. I'm sure the dev who created the Pull Request is feeling pretty embarrassed this week.
Disclaimer: I didn't verify anything I'm saying here. I'm piecing together what I heard on the Simply Bitcoin podcast with my own experience with bugs & upgrades on my node this week.
reply
yeah, i believe you’re right that a majority of nodes are on LND today. where would you look to find the exact number? has anyone built a dashboard showing the % of nodes on different implementations?
interesting hypothesis, perhaps other node operators can chime in with their experience.
reply
reply
I wonder how they collected that data… or how LN implementation market share has evolved in the last two years?
reply