Subnostr

I see many people that want to "fix Bitcoin" with all kind of mental gymnastic "solutions" that are NOT Bitcoin, but nobody is looking to fix what is obviously not working well: force closing channels.

Right now, Bitcoin and LN works as is supposed to be.

It is not a real problem opening channels in high fee environment. You can fix that with batch opening channels and consolidate the fees.

The problem is when you get a force close channel, because on the path you got a shity Tor node, with shity maintenance and your HTLC got stuck on the way, then triggered the force closing. Or whatever other reason for that force closing that can cost you a fortune.

We can transact very well and fairly cheap over LN if we do not have all these crazy force closures in high fee env.

I can live with opening channels in high fee env. Is a cost that node runners could asume it and can be manageable.

But I cannot live with the threat that some day, some payment got stuck for reasons that I cannot control and for that my channel got closed.

Spend and replace works perfectly fine on LN to refill your emptied channels.

Please STOP looking into bullshit solutions and fix the damn force closing channels. Then we will have another 10+ years of smooth adoption, meanwhile we can build more robust solutions for billions.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 2y ago

stop running LND and campaign to get a fork made with entirely fresh devs working on it and not the same old conformal crew, they are incredibly slack and unresponsive - i personally have tried to get several issues fixed on both btcd and lnd and was absolutely astounded by the lack of concern about fixing real issues

i'm not a fan of blockstream for other reasons but CLN has much more stable implementation

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

DarthCoin ₿⚡️ 2y ago

Is not about running a LN implementation or an other. That doesn't help if you jump from using LND to CLN.

In the past I run all of them.

Keep in mind that moving let's say 100 channels from LND to CLN, it will cost you a fortune... for what? For the same threat that some day your new freshly CLN channels will not get force closed by other LND nodes in the path?

Until we will not have a strong consensus between all LN implementations, all these force closures will continue to happen.

We need better rules for force closures on all LN implementations.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 2y ago

i see, it's a protocol convention that is quite adverse

i think there isn't really a logical reason for force closures

just wait until later, liveness is the big weakness of LN, it's not negotiable by the design of it

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 2y ago

also, sounds like channel state migration is a sore need too