pull down to refresh

Motivation is a tricky beast. There have been times where I read every single log line as it flew by, trying to understand the details, optimizing stuff. There have been times (more recently) where I simply don't look at any information of the node, aside from "is it still running". Nowadays, I just do what feels right, without any plan. If my motivation drops too low, I'll close the node. Luckily, there's a lot of automation going on behind the scenes, so my motivation would need to drop quite a lot.
I stopped opening channels to new peers a while ago, mainly because I haven't figured out how to find good peers. I experimented quite a bit over the years, sometimes with success, but not in a satisfactory and organized manner. Due to the size/popularity of my node, I get lots of channels from (for me) new peers, and I just keep those that are worth it. I need to take good care of my sats, and having them sit idle in useless channels isn't worth it - which is why the number of channels might be rather low. The channels that remain, however, are good (or new).
If I take a closer look at the top channels while including bidirection traffic (i.e. incoming traffic also counts as "good" if it leaves through a channel where I charge fees), the top nodes for the past 60 days are, sorted by profitability with the best peer listed first:
  • Binance
  • fixedfloat.com
  • LOOP
  • LNBiG.com Edge 4
  • LNBiG.com Hub 1
  • LNBiG.com Hub 3
  • Strike
  • cyberdyne.sh
  • adam.masterofpearls.net
  • Net Neutrality
I guess you could say that larger nodes are better. Keep in mind, though, that not all large nodes are good peers. I've cut some ties, and I will cut more.
Regarding profitability: keep in mind that this involves quite a bit of risk (hot wallet, "beta" software). Furthermore, running a routing node takes quite a bit of skill. If this were an established industry, my salary would be more than what any reasonable node could earn - risk and other costs aside. It's a hobby. I'm fine with smaller nodes as peers, but ultimately, they tend to hog my sats more than larger nodes do.
To add to this:
ACINQ, bfx-lnd0, bfx-lnd1, okx and kraken didn't make it to the top 10, even though I have/had channels with those peers, too. Size alone isn't enough, there needs to be demand, which Binance seems to have quite a lot of.
I'd say the best reason to run a node in the lightning network, taking into account the risk and all costs, is to actually use it. Businesses that depend on their node, or at least provide a decent benefit to their users by offering LN, don't need to care about the overhead. They earn money using some other means.
reply
The exchanges nodes are the first user case we have and they tend to centralize, only a few have all the traffic, maybe in the future, as you said we could see more real traffic from real business.
reply
Thanks for your detail response :) and thanks to develop software to use with our nodes.
reply