reply on: Why happen force closures on LN channels? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

53 sats \ 4 replies \ @Bitcoiner1 23 Aug \ on: Why happen force closures on LN channels? bitcoin

Thanks @DarthCoin for all the information.

There are so many new concepts that I didn't know about it and know I know.

This post worth reading!

32 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin OP 23 Aug

With so many "reserves" for the channels I am wondering why this situation still happen. It really sucks, especially when you buy the inbound channels, that are supposed to stay open for the time you "sign the contract".

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @nikotsla 24 Aug

Maybe I am wrong but that "signed contract" is outside the blockchain, people need to be aware of that when buy a inbound channel, we need to do a lot of work in this type of flow: Node => Buy channel => Node

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin OP 24 Aug

yes indeed. The thing is that also the seller cannot enforce this "contract" when all the FC happen automatically, they have to follow the LN code. So you can't really blame the seller that they specifically "forced closed on you" that channel. Is not in their interest to do that, because they are also losing sats. idk a real solution to avoid as mush as we can these automated FC.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @nikotsla 24 Aug

Indeed, you can't blame any part for the FC, not easy to solve this without fall in the "smart contract" trap. I think this is one of the main issues in the LN ecosystem right now.