The Lightning Network FAQ

[PrimeNumber7]

With BTC 10 I'd probably go the other way and open 1,000 channels worth BTC 0.001 each.  That would enable me to  have a much wider spread of nodes / regional access than just sending coins backwards and forwards to just one other node.

If you have at least two channels with a lot of capacity, you potentially can charge higher fees because some transactions would need to be routed through your node, and you would potentially have a higher volume of transactions route via your node for similar reasons.

To my knowledge, it is not possible to route a portion of a payment through a channel. So if you have channels with BTC 0.001 of capacity on each side, you would be unable to handle any transactions above this amount.

[1714948451]

1714948451

[1714948451]

1714948451

[1714948451]

1714948451

[1714948451]

1714948451

[Rath_]

It goes without saying if bitcoin were to become worth $1M, or even $100k, then it might be very tempting to cash that amount out and install a much small amount in its place.

By the time that happens, splicing-out will have been already implemented. It will allow them to remove some coins from that channel without closing it.

With BTC 10 I'd probably go the other way and open 1,000 channels worth BTC 0.001 each.  That would enable me to  have a much wider spread of nodes / regional access than just sending coins backwards and forwards to just one other node.

In my opinion, 0.001 BTC per channel is too little. You would quickly run into liquidity problems and most of your channels would be unbalanced. Still, that's a better strategy than none! It might actually work to some extent.

Which node do they connect to?

It's a channel between ACINQ and OpenNode.com

If you have at least two channels with a lot of capacity, you potentially can charge higher fees because some transactions would need to be routed through your node, and you would potentially have a higher volume of transactions route via your node for similar reasons.

Your connectivity is far more important if you want to route a higher volume of transactions. I have a fairly large channel to Bitfinex (0.05 BTC) and a small one to Nicehash (0.01 BTC). Apparently, I am providing the shortest and the cheapest route for both directions as my Nicehash channel keeps being exhausted all the time at either of the sides. My Bitfinex channel remains balanced since it's much bigger.

To my knowledge, it is not possible to route a portion of a payment through a channel. So if you have channels with BTC 0.001 of capacity on each side, you would be unable to handle any transactions above this amount.

Payments can be split into many small chunks and sent through different routes. See Atomic Multi-Path Payments.

[Timelord2067]

"If someone gifted me BTC 10.0 (   ) I probably would open a thousand channels with BTC 0.001 capacity."  ( It'd probably be more likely BTC 0.0011 per channel to enable 0.001 to be sent in one piece - per channel and the other 0.0001 to cover opening/closing fees...)

In my opinion, 0.001 BTC per channel is too little. You would quickly run into liquidity problems and most of your channels would be unbalanced. Still, that's a better strategy than none! It might actually work to some extent.

Basically, I'd be looking at cornering a portion of the low end $1 - ~$30 transactions - I'd cover all gaming sites, low cash payment sites such as coffee or snack foods and would tap into nodes with about 20 - 50 open channels.  Let even smaller operators with less than twenty channels connect to those smaller nodes then my BTC 10.0 block would be like a cross-city expressway.


Just as a thought bubble question - would having two or three 0.001 channels to the one larger node be better or hinder itself Vs one larger 0.003, 0.004, 0.005 channel?  (to my thinking two channels out of three could be unbalanced while one is still freed up for more traffic)

[LoyceV]

@Timelord2067: many different small channels makes it much more work to balance all of them. Even worse: opening that many channels probably costs more in fees than making only on-chain transactions.

[Rath_]

Just as a thought bubble question - would having two or three 0.001 channels to the one larger node be better or hinder itself Vs one larger 0.003, 0.004, 0.005 channel?  (to my thinking two channels out of three could be unbalanced while one is still freed up for more traffic)

Since the payments can be split across multiple channels, I wouldn't be surprised if a single payment exhausted your liquidity in all three channels at once. I would open more than just one channel to the same node if the funds in my existing channel would be often moved the other side despite high fees. That's the only workaround until splicing-in becomes available.

( It'd probably be more likely BTC 0.0011 per channel to enable 0.001 to be sent in one piece - per channel and the other 0.0001 to cover opening/closing fees...)

You could save a ton of money on the fees by opening multiple channels in a single transaction.

[DaveF]

Just saw this pop up: https://blockstream.com/2021/07/21/nl-greenlight-by-blockstream-lightning-made-easy/
So they are now beginning to push out their hosted "node in a box" solution.
Don't know how much traction it's going to get but it's another way for people to use lightning so unless it's total garbage I see it as a good thing.
If I have a free moment I'll look at it over the weekend. If someone else gets to do it earlier that would be good to

-Dave

[Jendral Istimewa]

There can be an cyber attack if the if the payment channel become crowded and thus participants might not be able to get back their money. These bugs needed to be solved.

[Rath_]

So they are now beginning to push out their hosted "node in a box" solution.
Don't know how much traction it's going to get but it's another way for people to use lightning so unless it's total garbage I see it as a good thing.

Since all the signing is done on user's device, such node will probably not able to route payments. The only advantage over some mobile wallet I can think of is ability to use advanced features like: dual-funding, multifund, keysend payments.

[JustAnOtherLoser]

Hi,

"You have exceeded the limit of 2 personal messages per day. Buying a Copper membership may increase your limit."

...so I'll write here. I'm trying to open a Channel to your Node right now with 70k Sats. RTL did load indefinitely.
I get a "502 Bad Gateway"-Error. I'll try it again, maybe it's just a small hick-up? Never had this problem, but I
did not open too many channels by now
 

[Rath_]

I'm trying to open a Channel to your Node right now with 70k Sats. RTL did load indefinitely.
I get a "502 Bad Gateway"-Error. I'll try it again, maybe it's just a small hick-up? Never had this problem, but I
did not open too many channels by now

Try restarting RTL. I have never had any problems with it, but I am running c-lightning as the backend. Why don't you try to open the channel using the command line? Here's the right command along with all parameters.

Code:

lncli openchannel 0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5 70000 --sat_per_vbyte 1

[JustAnOtherLoser]

SSH keeps saying I entered the wrong password   ... thats why I use GUI at the moment.
"peer disconnected" Is what I get as Error. I already restarted my Node.

My btc core seemed to be out of sync for about 11 Hours. I'm at 100% by now again.
Could this be a problem? Running Umbrel btw. I'll try it later again, promised! Don't close your channel

[Rath_]

My btc core seemed to be out of sync for about 11 Hours. I'm at 100% by now again.
Could this be a problem?

I checked my logs and I kept getting the following error.

Code:

02fbb789c95ee3cfd4d5313889070720599d4d4b7a9577e2f01a3042b831c65e01-chan#53: Peer transient failure in CHANNELD_NORMAL: channeld WARNING: Bad tx_signatures [redacted]

Since your node was out of sync, it could not verify if the funding transaction had been confirmed while my node kept sending "funding_locked" message. Everything looks good now. It could also be the reason why you were not able to open a channel to me. You should keep your Bitcoin node synced at all times. If someone broadcasts an outdated commitment transaction, you have limited time to publish a penalty transaction.

I'll try it later again, promised! Don't close your channel

Take your time and don't worry about it. I will be fine even if you don't open a channel back to me.

[JustAnOtherLoser]

I don't know if this was already asked (probably), buuut:

Are my LN Wallet & Channels on my Node connected to my btc wallet?

I'm asking because I was wondering what a User should do if his private Key
is leaked or compromised in any way to use an alternate BTC wallet on an
Umbrel Node. For it being a hot wallet it would be plausible to switch it out
once in a while, or am I beeing to paranoid?

Maybe it's just a UI thing and LN is capabale of this, but Umbrel isn't?

In short: My attempt would be to transfer the leftover UTXO's to a new
Private Key / BTC Wallet, but use the old LN Wallet & Channels for it.

[JustAnOtherLoser]

Why don't you try to open the channel using the command line? Here's the right command along with all parameters.

Code:

lncli openchannel 0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5 70000 --sat_per_vbyte 1

So - I used this Code to run your command on my Umbrel Node:

Code:

docker exec -i lnd lncli openchannel 0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5 70000 --sat_per_byte 1

(sat_per_vbyte did not seem to exist as parameter)

It gave me this: [lncli] rpc error: code = Unknown desc = peer disconnected

LND Log:

Code:

2021-08-06 03:49:54.363 [INF] SWPR: Manual fee rate input of 250 sat/kw is too low, using 253 sat/kw instead
2021-08-06 03:49:54.363 [INF] FNDG: Initiating fundingRequest(local_amt=0.0007 BTC (subtract_fees=false), push_amt=0 mSAT, chain_hash=000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f, peer=0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5, dust_limit=0.00000573 BTC, min_confs=1)
2021-08-06 03:49:54.368 [INF] CHFD: Performing funding tx coin selection using 253 sat/kw as fee rate
2021-08-06 03:49:54.381 [WRN] CHFD: Unable to find funding output for shim intent: unable to create witness script, no funding keys
2021-08-06 03:49:54.413 [INF] FNDG: Target commit tx sat/kw for pendingID(692eecce3a37dcabb2be8370b6aaa58a39739f8b6f3f5685ceddfc70b0a4f376): 43178
2021-08-06 03:49:54.413 [INF] FNDG: Starting funding workflow with fjpmf23cd2c6sqp7e4wzexa6ixkttl3jabivldakwq733tw634ymjbid.onion:9735 for pending_id(692eecce3a37dcabb2be8370b6aaa58a39739f8b6f3f5685ceddfc70b0a4f376), committype=tweakless
2021-08-06 03:49:54.888 [INF] PEER: unable to read message from 0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5@fjpmf23cd2c6sqp7e4wzexa6ixkttl3jabivldakwq733tw634ymjbid.onion:9735: unable to parse message of unknown type: <unknown>
2021-08-06 03:49:55.099 [INF] PEER: unable to read message from 0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5@fjpmf23cd2c6sqp7e4wzexa6ixkttl3jabivldakwq733tw634ymjbid.onion:9735: EOF
2021-08-06 03:49:55.100 [INF] PEER: disconnecting 0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5@fjpmf23cd2c6sqp7e4wzexa6ixkttl3jabivldakwq733tw634ymjbid.onion:9735, reason: read handler closed
2021-08-06 03:49:55.301 [INF] DISC: Removing GossipSyncer for peer=0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5
2021-08-06 03:49:55.301 [INF] DISC: GossipSyncer(02eb2d3580f4122482a0c9af5aa9d5f9a43574487e72ea5297d26d85de9e029f80): applying gossipFilter(start=2021-08-06 03:49:55.301988561 +0000 UTC m=+1017.171503105, end=2157-09-12 10:18:10.301988561 +0000 UTC)
2021-08-06 03:49:55.302 [INF] HSWC: Removing channel link with ChannelID(aabe578dfee04433ce8b3173f2bbe0f839f78bfabdee954ba6944622a736a28d)
2021-08-06 03:49:55.302 [INF] HSWC: ChannelLink(693925:886:1): stopping
2021-08-06 03:49:55.302 [ERR] RPCS: unable to open channel to NodeKey(0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5): peer disconnected
2021-08-06 03:49:55.302 [ERR] RPCS: [/lnrpc.Lightning/OpenChannel]: peer disconnected
2021-08-06 03:49:55.302 [INF] HSWC: ChannelLink(693925:886:1): exited
2021-08-06 03:49:58.663 [INF] SRVR: Established connection to: 0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5@fjpmf23cd2c6sqp7e4wzexa6ixkttl3jabivldakwq733tw634ymjbid.onion:9735
2021-08-06 03:49:58.663 [INF] SRVR: Finalizing connection to 0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5@fjpmf23cd2c6sqp7e4wzexa6ixkttl3jabivldakwq733tw634ymjbid.onion:9735, inbound=false
2021-08-06 03:49:59.557 [INF] PEER: NodeKey(0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5) loading ChannelPoint(8ca236a7224694a64b95eebdfa8bf739f8e0bbf273318bce3344e0fe8d57beaa:1)
2021-08-06 03:49:59.558 [INF] HSWC: Removing channel link with ChannelID(aabe578dfee04433ce8b3173f2bbe0f839f78bfabdee954ba6944622a736a28d)
2021-08-06 03:49:59.558 [INF] HSWC: ChannelLink(693925:886:1): starting
2021-08-06 03:49:59.558 [INF] HSWC: Trimming open circuits for chan_id=693925:886:1, start_htlc_id=0
2021-08-06 03:49:59.559 [INF] HSWC: Adding live link chan_id=aabe578dfee04433ce8b3173f2bbe0f839f78bfabdee954ba6944622a736a28d, short_chan_id=693925:886:1
2021-08-06 03:49:59.559 [INF] CNCT: Attempting to update ContractSignals for ChannelPoint(8ca236a7224694a64b95eebdfa8bf739f8e0bbf273318bce3344e0fe8d57beaa:1)
2021-08-06 03:49:59.559 [INF] PEER: Negotiated chan series queries with 0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5
2021-08-06 03:49:59.559 [INF] DISC: Creating new GossipSyncer for peer=0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5
2021-08-06 03:49:59.560 [INF] HSWC: ChannelLink(693925:886:1): HTLC manager started, bandwidth=0 mSAT
2021-08-06 03:49:59.560 [INF] HSWC: ChannelLink(693925:886:1): attempting to re-resynchronize
2021-08-06 03:49:59.875 [INF] HSWC: ChannelLink(693925:886:1): received re-establishment message from remote side
2021-08-06 03:50:00.680 [INF] DISC: GossipSyncer(0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5): applying new update horizon: start=2106-02-07 06:28:15 +0000 UTC, end=2242-03-16 12:56:30 +0000 UTC, backlog_size=0
2021-08-06 03:50:00.681 [INF] DISC: Received new remote channel announcement for 693925:886:1

 

[Rath_]

(sat_per_vbyte did not seem to exist as parameter)

That's weird. You can see here that it's a valid parameter. I even remember using it a few months ago when I was running LND.

LND Log:

Are you still running LND v0.12.1? You messaged me that you updated Umbrel but I am not familiar with it.

Code:

[WRN] CHFD: Unable to find funding output for shim intent: unable to create witness script, no funding keys

I looked up the above warning and found out something interesting.

This is expected. With the new anchor output channel format you need to keep a reserve in your wallet for when a channel needs to be force closed. The error you get isn't very helpful but this has been fixed in a recently merged PR: #5577

So you need 10k sats per channel (or a maximum of 100k sats in total) as a reserve.

Anchor output channels have been enabled by default since LND v0.13.0. It looks like either you won't have enough funds in your wallet to meet the above criteria after opening a channel to me or my node expects you to support anchor output channels which you probably don't have enabled.

I have just updated my node to the latest master branch and enabled more detailed logs. Let's see if it works now or if we can at least find out something useful.

[JustAnOtherLoser]

Are you still running LND v0.12.1?

=>  "version": "0.12.1-beta commit=v0.12.1-beta"
I don't know why, but thats whats running on my Umbrel.
I'll have to look it up, I guess? Maybe there is a reason?

edit: Reddit => "You have to wait for Umbrel to support it.
Apparently v0.13 had some big changes with how the wallet is
unlocked so i am assuming that is what’s taking them so long."

So maybe I should not hackle with it myself by now? ...Maybe I
should migrate my Umbrel into something less "consumer friendly"

It looks like either you won't have enough funds in your wallet to meet the above criteria after opening a channel to me.

My remaining Balance would be about 120k Sats after opening a 70k Channel to you. If I understood correct everything above 100k should be sufficient?

or my node expects you to support anchor output channels which you probably don't have enabled.

I don't even. Anchor Output Channels? I need to search this up.

Edit: If I understood correctly, Anchor Output Channels are just special Outputs to have a fee bumping feature.
This means my Bitcoin full node should be implementing package relay, which is another feature itself?
Am I getting here somewhere or should I stop digging?  

Regarding your Log + Time request
My Last Try was at: 23:28 - UTC/GMT +1:00  (06.08.2021)

Hope this helps somehow  

[Rath_]

My remaining Balance would be about 120k Sats after opening a 70k Channel to you. If I understood correct everything above 100k should be sufficient?

Yes, that would be more than enough.

Regarding your Log + Time request
My Last Try was at: 23:28 - UTC/GMT +1:00  (06.08.2021)

I couldn't find anything useful in the logs. I have no idea what else could be the cause. Last month, two people managed to open channels to me but they were both running c-lightning and we didn't have any other active channels.

So maybe I should not hackle with it myself by now? ...Maybe I
should migrate my Umbrel into something less "consumer friendly

I can't guarantee you that it will work once you have migrated. I double-checked LND changelogs and it turns out that your node supports anchor channels without any extra configuration.

lnd will now open the new channel type dubbed "anchor channels" by default if both peers support it.

I wonder if you could open a channel to me if I closed my channel. Would you mind if we give it a try? I would close my channel. Then, you would open a 100k-120k satoshi channel to me and I would try opening back a channel with the same value.

Why a 100k-120k channel? In case I am not able to open a channel to you, I could receive ~50k-60k satoshi through your channel and refund you via an on-chain transaction. This way, we would have a perfectly balanced channel even if we fail to open another channel. I am also open to other suggestions.

[JustAnOtherLoser]

I wonder if you could open a channel to me if I closed my channel. Would you mind if we give it a try? I would close my channel. Then, you would open a 100k-120k satoshi channel to me and I would try opening back a channel with the same value.

Yeah, sure. Let's test this out! Just out of curiosity: When the Mempool is really empty, could I set 0 sats per vByte as fee? In theory a miner should not mind, if the block has empty space or will I end up bumping the fee to get my Tx through?


ps.: Thanks for fiddling around with my umbrel problems

[Timelord2067]

I can't convince bitcoin core to set a transaction fee to zero, the lowest I can go is one satoshi (it sets it to one thousand per kb, but I'm sure you understand what I'm referring to).

I was just wondering, what bitcoin wallet are you using that allows you to set a zero sat fee paid for transactions?

[JustAnOtherLoser]

I can't convince bitcoin core to set a transaction fee to zero, the lowest I can go is one satoshi (it sets it to one thousand per kb, but I'm sure you understand what I'm referring to).

I was just wondering, what bitcoin wallet are you using that allows you to set a zero sat fee paid for transactions?

I never tried by now to be honest! I use a multiple of wallets & software. Most of them just deliver an input field
or console commands. I always wondered if I could get 0 sats through, but never tried by now.
Before LN I never moved any of my coins anyway