At this point, ln node runners are the only ones getting rugged and we're the only ones holding our keys.
Feelsbadman, it's not supposed to be like this
Discussion
Lots of doom and gloom on this from you lately. Maybe I'm not being realistic here or maybe I'm just too hopeful. I'd like to think that solutions have to be found because the alternatives are worse. If we all end up using custodial solutions then we've lost the mission.
I don't like watching my people lose so many sats 😭
I get it that. I am dreading a force closure or any other issue in this high fee environment. I'm also fully aware that the current implementations, high fees or lows fees, are not for the masses and we'll need better solutions for them.
All that's happening now is hands are being forced to find solutions. We now have the catalyst.
I also wanna get back to building but lightning is making me real nervous I don't feel confident in it anymore
High Stress is what separates the good tech from the best tech
It is supposed to be like this.
We're in the "then they fight you" stage.
And it's still early innings in a game that will end up being played for blood.
So the high fee environment is currently an attack?
Kinda feels that way to me
If people paying to use the network is an attack, it’s not gonna make it. I don’t see this as an attack.
How do fees relate to LN noderunners getting rugged?
That part i have no idea. I just meant all the shitcoining on Bitcoin is having an effect that feels attack-ish. A futile attack, but still attack-ish
That bot isn’t new, it’s been around for at least 6 months and I could find its posts in global at any time of the day, any day.
High fees don’t cause force closes, it just makes them more expensive.
Not sure where it's implied that high fees are causing it, but high fees take these force closures from annoying to outright rugs
They also make stuck htlcs uneconomical to recover
Whereas people using custodians aren't losing anything
I understand what you’re saying now. Aren’t the fee rates set by the party initiating the force close?
Fees are always paid by whoever opened the channel.
It’s another example of why it’s better to have some knowledge of your channel counterparty or some form of relationship then. If I opened a channel to you and then you immediately force closed it, that would certainly be a bummer.
The economics of compressing 100s of transactions into two transactions still make Lightning very attractive to me, and being sovereign is an ideology which goes beyond potential fees. But people are free, and have always been free, to use custodial solutions.
It’s a point for Lightning as a service too.
I kind of see it as dual purpose. BRC-20's are intentionally space-inefficient to bloat the chain and agitate users with high fees. In order to afford the fees to put them on-chain, they also serve as obvious low-level scams. Many "influencers" in BSV are amoral reprobates behind BRC-20's. They are not above ripping people off, and now they can do it while also trying the patience of Bitcoiners, whom they also hate.
When you say getting rugged, what do you mean? Incoming [likely] over-regulation and FinCEN stuff?
Nah force closes during high fees.
Seeing multiple people opened 1m sat channels get forced closed for 500k fee over the last few days.
Having a hard time recommending people setup their own nodes given this
Ahh. That’s really rough. So is there a situation where if fees get high enough a channel can force-close as a result of something contractual?
Or is it more that the unfortunately-timed force close just hurts extra bad when fees are high?
I'm not sure about that. Clearly I have a lot to learn!
I made a critical mistake last night while hardening my home network and inadvertently blocked necessary routing through my node with a dumb firewall rule. I didn't catch it and htlc's were stuck while I slept. My node broadcasted a force close commitment. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Learning a lot today! Certain lengths - or degrees - of downtime (but not others?) will cause a force close?
Sorry for your loss of sats 🫂
What I learned/surmised yesterday happened in a whirlwind, so the details aren't quite clear to me yet.
> Node fine, no issues
> apply newly learned firewall rules, go to sleep
> wake up, see force close
> panic
> firewall logs show blocked IP's to node while sleep
> nuke firewall rules
The particular network firewall rule was 'Drop invalid state', which I don't fully understand and blindly applied as part of an overall hardening guide.
So, to attempt answering your question given my limited knowledge:
An offline node doesn't seem to cause anything to get stuck, but an online node with broken LAN routing appears to be a real issue.
Perhaps my node appeared as viable in the graph, accepted an htlc, but threw it in the fuckin trash? 🤷♂️
What I just said doesn't quite add up to me, because I'm wondering why my own node would broadcast a force close if it was in fact the 'bad actor'. I was under the impression that other nodes in the route would force close as a result of my node not 'playing fairly'.
All I know is the only variable out of place here is that LAN firewall rule.
Isn't Lighting still experimental? Forced closure seems to be part of running a node.
Is the risk lessened by using apps like Breeze or Phoenix?
Feels like they need stronger contracts between nodes. Sad. I also ran a node for a while then my equipment failed. Awful.
That's how I got force closed this past summer. If there was a way to contact node runners that's more discreet than email, stronger contacts could be easier to hold
reckless life