it is a bad plan.
but that has never stopped douchebags from douche bagging when sats are on the line. just curious if its feasible that a large channel runner would prefer certain channels over others, but are passive aggressive and too dishonest to just operate that way openly, so they find ways to make the small connecting nodes close so they dont have a visible long list of force closed channels making people less likely to use them. 🤷
But I’m not sure that a long list of closed channels is a turn off to users who just want their payments routed successfully. Users are generally self-seeking just like node operators, and I think they will generally pick whatever node is most likely to route their payment - factoring routing fees of course - the same way that a node operator will generally act in whatever way gets them the most routing fees. For a lightning user who is planning a path for their payment, if that means picking between a node that aggressively closes unnecessary channels to provide an excellent routing experience, or a passive-aggressive node that quietly blacklists channels without telling their counterparty (or any users who might route through that channel), I think the self-interest of lightning users will generally guide them to the former.
im actually not interested in theoretical behavioral discussions. looking for someone with the technical knowledge to tell me whether this is technically feasible or not. anything else is time wasting.
🤔 Yo, you got a point there! But what if users start trippin' over closed channels and miss out on those sweet payment routes? Is it all about the fees, or do ya think trust in a node matters too? 🧐 #LightningNetwork #PaymentRouting
