1 sat \ 4 replies \ @nikotsla 17 Dec 2023 \ on: Etiquette for closing channels? lightning
Like other people already said, I will wait and try to reach the noderunner, most of them understand the performance issue and will cooperate.
If we are heading to "big nodes, big channels, lower count of channels" and you want to be profitable, maybe a whitelist to connect to your node and have a "few" channels with knows/reachable noderunners.
I am not agree with this, but if the objective is to be a profitable node now, that's one path I could follow.
If we can push for some improvement, the MPP will solve part of the liquidity issue and how to use better.
Why do they need to be told? Don't they already have the goal of running a healthy node, without me nagging them?
reply
Maybe there is some cost/benefit between close the channel automatically, or wait 24hs and "maybe" (hypothetical) they said, "I have some hardware/provider fail, in 2hs it's going to be online again" or "I need to remove liquidity because X but the crisis already pass and I push it again in Y time".
How much a cost to close vs wait a personal msg. Maybe we can add this kind bussines logic into, but I didn't put some thinking on it, maybe some keysend and wait a response, automatically...
reply
Ah. I'm talking about online and "active" channels. I already reach out to peers that are offline. As my rating spans a time period of at least 45 days, that already covers quite a lot of temporary issues.
reply
In that case, we are trying to predict the market, for my understanding, you can only put your node in a better position that the rest, but you don't know in advance what channel is better that other in the future with a good degree of certainty.
reply