#lightning #asknostr I see my one and only channel megalith is down this morning. Was going to open an extra channel this morning while the mempool is so empty. Can anybody recommend one of the others that nostr:npub1getal6ykt05fsz5nqu4uld09nfj3y3qxmv8crys4aeut53unfvlqr80nfm offers? Price difference is huge between lnserver and the others.... like 45000 sats for the others and 7000 for lnserver. Anybody got anything bad to say about them before I do this? Thanks!
LQwD was also 7000 if there is a preference for that one.
I'll just go with the really fast AI answer then 😃 Going to put this here for anyone else that wonders... both the search and reasoned answers.
Searched Based:
Based on the provided image and context, here is an analysis of the listed Lightning Network nodes in terms of uptime reliability and their likelihood to close channels:
## **Ranking by Uptime Reliability**
1. **LQwD**
- Maximum capacity: 100,000,000 sats
- Minimum capacity: 50,000 sats
- LQwD is known for its professional-grade infrastructure and high uptime, making it one of the most reliable nodes.
2. **Olympus by ZEUS**
- Maximum capacity: 10,000,000 sats
- Minimum capacity: 100,000 sats
- Olympus by ZEUS is a well-regarded node with stable operations and good uptime.
3. **Megalith**
- Maximum capacity: 16,000,000 sats
- Minimum capacity: 150,000 sats
- Megalith shows decent performance but may not match the reliability of LQwD or Olympus.
4. **Lnserver**
- Maximum capacity: 10,000,000 sats
- Minimum capacity: 2,000,000 sats
- Lnserver has smaller channel sizes and less data available on long-term reliability.
5. **FlashSats**
- Maximum capacity: 10,000,000 sats
- Minimum capacity: 1,000,000 sats
- FlashSats has limited data on uptime but appears to be less prominent compared to others.
---
## **Likelihood of Closing Channels**
1. **LQwD** (Least Likely)
- Known for prioritizing network stability and avoiding unnecessary channel closures.
2. **Olympus by ZEUS** (Moderately Likely)
- While stable, Zeus nodes may force-close channels during recovery processes or liquidity issues.
3. **Megalith** (Moderately Likely)
- No specific data on aggressive channel closures but may close channels in cases of poor peer performance.
4. **Lnserver** (More Likely)
- Smaller channels and lower liquidity could lead to higher chances of channel closures.
5. **FlashSats** (Most Likely)
- Limited information available; smaller minimum channel size might indicate higher closure rates due to liquidity constraints.
---
### Summary
- **Best for Uptime and Stability:** LQwD and Olympus by ZEUS.
- **Nodes with Higher Closure Risk:** FlashSats and Lnserver due to smaller capacities and potentially less robust operations.
Reasoning:
Based on the search results, I'll analyze the Lightning Network nodes mentioned in the image focusing on uptime and channel closure reliability:
## Uptime Analysis
**Most Reliable**
- LQwD: Shows consistent high uptime with over 96,000 transactions per month and stable routing performance[12][17]
- Strike: Demonstrates high reliability as a major routing node with 256 channels and significant capacity[15]
- Olympus by ZEUS: Maintains stable operations with 72-75 channels and consistent capacity around 958M sats[2]
**Less Reliable**
- Megalith: Shows lower performance metrics with only 21 active channels and relatively small capacity[18]
- FlashSats: Limited uptime data available in search results
## Channel Closure Behavior
**More Conservative (Less Likely to Force Close)**
- Strike: Professional routing node with optimized bi-directional flow and natural rebalancing[15]
- LQwD: Emphasizes internal node stability and network strengthening[32]
**More Aggressive (More Likely to Force Close)**
- Zeus-based nodes: Will automatically force-close channels during recovery processes or when issues are detected[6]
- FlashSats: Limited data available on closure behavior
**Important Considerations:**
- Channel force-closures often occur due to:
- Unresponsive peers during HTLC settlements
- Liquidity issues
- Network connectivity problems[29]
- Optimal node uptime should be at least 95% to avoid hurting network reliability[13]
Check their fee report in Amboss to get an idea how much the will charge for transactions.
Thanks, I will be back to zap soon I hope!
I'd say something like this:
1. Lnserver (cheaper fees) or Olympus (fairly high fees)
2. LQwD (fairly low fees)
3. Flashsats (mid-range fees)
just based on liquidity flexibility, in other words, their ability to respond to demands on their liquidity. For the most part, small transactions like zaps are likely to go through without trouble on any of these lsps.
Awesome, thanks! 👍
