Need 'medium' LN node operators opinion \ stacker news ~bitcoin

1253 sats \ 14 comments \ @bartoli 22 Sep bitcoin

So, my LN node has reached 'not small' size (1BTC cap). And the size i now open channels of is now big enough (5M) that i will now probably be able to open only one new per year.

Now, my 'problem' is that my routing node is now becoming 'interesting' enough (~#300 on Amboss) that i get a few channel openings per month. Which is nice i a way. But it also only increases my node's inbound capacity, which might get some channels stuck. I already have more than 5M extra inbound from external channels, so even my next channel opening would not balance it out. Normally, i will try to choose peers that will make me the cheapest path for the most possible new nodes, AND in a way that brings similar traffic in both directions, so that they naturally balance themselves. And it seems to work 'well'.

But now, with those external channel openings, I have to choose between: Simply puting my new sats available in existing channels, just to keep global a balance of inbound and outbound capacity, but on channels that might not be optimal for me. Or opening channels to peers i select for optimum routing, but keeping the extra inbound balance which might harm the natural balancing that somewhat worked. I also consider that the node is not big enough to chose to close the opened channels to me, which would violate the 'trust' the network is starting to have in my node.

What would you do?

PS : #outoftheloop Did the Lightning territory diappear?

view all related items

31 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 22 Sep

It's still there: ~lightning

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @03393ec3a3 22 Sep

Any reason it might not be visible in the dropdown? I even enabled NSFW, but I'm still not seeing it in the dropdown.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 22 Sep

Oh you’re right actually. It looks like it was archived.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 22 Sep

I always said: LN is Bitcoin and Bitcoin is LN. Separating them looks like are two different things.

32 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 22 Sep

Towards the end of my node experience, I was having a huge imbalance. People would keep opening channels to them and I did not want/have the means to increase my outgoing balance. However, it was hugely profitable, for me and for those peers, due to my specific situation at the time. I was playing the LOOP liquidity game, bigly (rotating at least 1 BTC per day). So, because they were opening channels to me, I was basically putting the burden of the game at N-2 instead of N-1 as is visual when LOOP is at N. The only thing I had to do was to continuously close and reopen channels to free up liquidity towards LOOP.

So, in brief, it's not a problem. You decide if/when to close such channels and if the same people keep opening to you, that's probably a good sign ;)

32 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 22 Sep

I don't understand why you feel you have to do anything new, what are your goals? Are you just trying to have a reliable node for yourself? optimize for earnings? Your goals determine what you should do, but you don't have to do anything, there's no law that states your channels must be balanced.

If you want to discourage failed forwarding attempts, jack the fee to the stratosphere on any channels where your local balance is depleted such that no one will try them.

Lightning nodes are still hot wallets too, so its always better to err on the side of not putting more than you need to out there.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheMorningStar 22 Sep

Good question. Thanks sir. I think comments qill have us a good learning.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto 22 Sep

Regarding the lightning territory: #536186

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto 22 Sep

I have around 15 BTC on my local side, but still face the same issue. Having a bit more remote balance is fine, but I still prefer to cut off channels that don't perform. There's still the struggle of having outbound liquidity where I want it to have, and it's far from perfect. For me or means having a bit of channel churn and, sadly, some routing failures.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 22 Sep

The balance is the key. That fact that you already have 1BTC liquidity, is quite big. For a routing node the important key is to offer same liquidity in both sides, incoming and outgoing. Is not necessary to be on each channel, but in total.

With a larger routing node I would look more into bridging the gaps to routes that are less covered. That is your "income". For example:

you can became a LSP for private node operators
you can became a swap provider

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @topsecret 22 Sep

It's fine to have more inbound liquidity than outbound. That means other people have deployed their capital inefficiently. Their problem, not yours.

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @fiatbad 22 Sep

This is how I feel too.

I don't exactly understand OP's issue. If people want to open channels to me, fine. I don't mind having that channel unbalanced.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @bartoli OP 23 Sep

Thanks everyone, lots of interesting things to think about.

Indeed, new channels don't actually affect me as long as liquidity is on their side. And when they start having some of my liquidity on them, i should decide if this is really a problem for me, and what i will do to limit it it if it is. The problem i was seeing is that if there are too much remote channels, thay could each potentially stuck my liquidity on them, unbalancing the other channels i carefully selected to be somewhat orcanically rebalancing as long as they have balanced liquidity

I think i will start by modifying my peer selection tool, to not only find interesting new peers, but also evaluate which existing peers are not interesting enough. So i can close some channels or reallocate their balance to other ones.

By then it should be clearer in my mind what i should do each time i have new funds to put on LN

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Doktor 22 Sep

Maybe also consider to set permissions to open a channel to you or decline it by default.