Problem with open chahnel

[DigitalMonster]

Problem with open channel: Exception('LocalConfig.MUST set channel_reserv_satoshis greater than or equal to dust_limit_satoshis')

I couldn't find where to set it in the settings 'dust_limit_satoshis'

Electrum 4.0.2 for Windows

[1714839387]

1714839387

[1714839387]

1714839387

[jackg]

I don't think you can? You might just have to cooperatively close it and reopen another if it's that there's less than ~600 Satoshi in your wallet?

But youll need around 0.003 to open a new channel.

[DigitalMonster]

I don't think you can? You might just have to cooperatively close it and reopen another if it's that there's less than ~600 Satoshi in your wallet?

But youll need around 0.003 to open a new channel.

Sent test 0.0001 to one and the second wallet to try out LN.

Later on the site it turned out that the minimum need is 0.002 per wallet. Why do you say 0.003 is the minimum?

Something very expensive turns out to use LN. It's easier for me to wait for the hype to subside and then send 1 Satoshi \ bytes the old-fashioned way from the blockchain.

Why is that? After all, LN is designed to increase the speed and reduce commissions on transfers

[Rath_]

Later on the site it turned out that the minimum need is 0.002 per wallet. Why do you say 0.003 is the minimum?

Either he got it wrong or added the channel opening transaction fee.

Why is that? After all, LN is designed to increase the speed and reduce commissions on transfers

You are missing one thing. Channels are supposed to be used more than once. Most people use the Lightning Network for small transactions which would be cost-ineffective to send via an on-chain transaction. Larger payments are also becoming feasible thanks to increasing network's liquidity and multi-path payments. Opening a channel for a single transaction is completely pointless.

[jackg]

I don't think you can? You might just have to cooperatively close it and reopen another if it's that there's less than ~600 Satoshi in your wallet?

But youll need around 0.003 to open a new channel.

Sent test 0.0001 to one and the second wallet to try out LN.

Later on the site it turned out that the minimum need is 0.002 per wallet. Why do you say 0.003 is the minimum?

Something very expensive turns out to use LN. It's easier for me to wait for the hype to subside and then send 1 Satoshi \ bytes the old-fashioned way from the blockchain.

Why is that? After all, LN is designed to increase the speed and reduce commissions on transfers

A lot of nodes gave a funding rate of either 0.002 or 0.003 for their channels, it made sense to say 0.003 so you know that's the expected minimum. I'd try opening one smaller and then working out the minimum for that individual.

I don't know why they'd make the minimum 0.002 have you tried contacting their support? They might not merge them if you send more.

On chain transactions are charged per the kb and ln transactions are charged as a percentage. Fees should be lower than 3% for most routes and in some wallets you can enable protection against high fee routes (not sure about electrum).

[nc50lc]

Problem with open channel: Exception('LocalConfig.MUST set channel_reserv_satoshis greater than or equal to dust_limit_satoshis')

I couldn't find where to set it in the settings 'dust_limit_satoshis'

That error was due to your attempted open channel's fund is lower than 0.000547BTC.
You'll get a different error if it's lower than Electrum's minimum which is Exception('funding_sat too low: xxxx < 200000')

Unfortunately, there's no settings to override it.

Something very expensive turns out to use LN. It's easier for me to wait for the hype to subside and then send 1 Satoshi \ bytes the old-fashioned way from the blockchain.

Why is that? After all, LN is designed to increase the speed and reduce commissions on transfers

I prefer it that way, because if the channel's funds is too low, users will end up opening channels more often if they need to send more funds.
If it's 0.002, they will only need that channel to transact LN funds given that the remote node has enough connections.

Plus, you can get your Bitcoins back to onchain funds and get inbound capacity though "submarine swap" feature which is very convenient to use in the GIU.

[DigitalMonster]

Later on the site it turned out that the minimum need is 0.002 per wallet. Why do you say 0.003 is the minimum?

Either he got it wrong or added the channel opening transaction fee.

Why is that? After all, LN is designed to increase the speed and reduce commissions on transfers

You are missing one thing. Channels are supposed to be used more than once. Most people use the Lightning Network for small transactions which would be cost-ineffective to send via an on-chain transaction. Larger payments are also becoming feasible thanks to increasing network's liquidity and multi-path payments. Opening a channel for a single transaction is completely pointless.

So how much money do I need to transfer to test opening a channel?

Of course, it is clear about the effectiveness of more than one transaction. Actually I wanted to open a channel let's say with a person who regularly made payments let's say very small, maybe for a year every month

[DigitalMonster]

I don't think you can? You might just have to cooperatively close it and reopen another if it's that there's less than ~600 Satoshi in your wallet?

But youll need around 0.003 to open a new channel.

Sent test 0.0001 to one and the second wallet to try out LN.

Later on the site it turned out that the minimum need is 0.002 per wallet. Why do you say 0.003 is the minimum?

Something very expensive turns out to use LN. It's easier for me to wait for the hype to subside and then send 1 Satoshi \ bytes the old-fashioned way from the blockchain.

Why is that? After all, LN is designed to increase the speed and reduce commissions on transfers

A lot of nodes gave a funding rate of either 0.002 or 0.003 for their channels, it made sense to say 0.003 so you know that's the expected minimum. I'd try opening one smaller and then working out the minimum for that individual.

I don't know why they'd make the minimum 0.002 have you tried contacting their support? They might not merge them if you send more.

On chain transactions are charged per the kb and ln transactions are charged as a percentage. Fees should be lower than 3% for most routes and in some wallets you can enable protection against high fee routes (not sure about electrum).

For now, I want to open channels directly with my contractors, and make regular monthly transfers, let's say, and save on this by closing channels once a year, let's say. This way I won't have to pay extra routing fees, right? Then I can launch my node, so that these fees between their channels were not higher than 1 Satoshi as now I translate picking up time in the network when there is no excitement

[DigitalMonster]

Problem with open channel: Exception('LocalConfig.MUST set channel_reserv_satoshis greater than or equal to dust_limit_satoshis')

I couldn't find where to set it in the settings 'dust_limit_satoshis'

That error was due to your attempted open channel's fund is lower than 0.000547BTC.
You'll get a different error if it's lower than Electrum's minimum which is Exception('funding_sat too low: xxxx < 200000')

Unfortunately, there's no settings to override it.

Something very expensive turns out to use LN. It's easier for me to wait for the hype to subside and then send 1 Satoshi \ bytes the old-fashioned way from the blockchain.

Why is that? After all, LN is designed to increase the speed and reduce commissions on transfers

I prefer it that way, because if the channel's funds is too low, users will end up opening channels more often if they need to send more funds.
If it's 0.002, they will only need that channel to transact LN funds given that the remote node has enough connections.

Plus, you can get your Bitcoins back to onchain funds and get inbound capacity though "submarine swap" feature which is very convenient to use in the GIU.

0.002 is a lot of money, more than 1700 rubles. For example, my clients will transfer me let's say 60 rubles a month in total, this is 0.00005788 for a year this is 0.00069376 I thought for this to start saving using LN instead of Bitcoin cache as now

submarine swap, there's a Commission of 0.5%, whatever

[nc50lc]

So how much money do I need to transfer to test opening a channel?

0.002 plus the fees to open a channel.
Then use "reverse swap" to get some of the funds you don't need back to onchain, but that process comes with a fee of 0.0002+ BTC.

Or launch Electrum with -testnet argument to use testnet's chain for testing purposes.

-snip-

0.002 is a lot of money, more than 1700 rubles. For example, my clients will transfer me let's say 60 rubles a month in total, this is 0.00005788 for a year this is 0.00069376 I thought for this to start saving using LN instead of Bitcoin cache as now

0.002BTC being "good enough" is my personal opinion like I said above.
Other wallets however, will let you open a channel with lower amount IIRC maybe Electrum devs would reduce this in the future.
I can't recommend others though since I'm not using them.

BTW, long-term saving with that amount though LN is a no go, I suggest custodian wallets for amounts like 0.00069376 a year.
Reason is, you can't receive at all if you don't have inbound capacity, read this thread for more info: Electrum Lightning Network walkthrough: Receiving a payment

[DigitalMonster]

So how much money do I need to transfer to test opening a channel?

0.002 plus the fees to open a channel.
Then use "reverse swap" to get some of the funds you don't need back to onchain, but that process comes with a fee of 0.0002+ BTC.

Or launch Electrum with -testnet argument to use testnet's chain for testing purposes.

So can I run on a multisig wallet too? I need it and two ln wallets that I created for the test. it turns out that all three should be run with this argument, right? All transactions with bitcoins there simply will not be present in the history later when to return to the main working network?

About the incoming capacity, everything is clear, I wanted to open let's say my local 0 and remote moiklients would open with a margin of say for a year direct channels to my wallet

"I suggest custodian wallets for amounts like 0.00069376 a year." Can I tell you more about this? what did you mean?
I only consider my cold storage. Now for small payments, the bitcoin cache is also used with mudtipodpyu fine, I want to switch from it to LN already on bitcoin to send each other even faster now and real bitcoins, and once a year to reduce the balance for example-closing the channel

[nc50lc]

So can I run on a multisig wallet too? I need it and two ln wallets that I created for the test. it turns out that all three should be run with this argument, right? All transactions with bitcoins there simply will not be present in the history later when to return to the main working network?

No, LN is only available for [standard] Native SegWit Electrum wallets.
Read the thread I linked above to learn more about the usage of Electrum's LN feature: Electrum Lightning Network walkthrough

Testnet funds have no value and in a separate blockchain than Bitcoin's and the testnet wallets will be saved in a different directory.
You can easily get funds using testnet faucets: List of Testnet BTC Faucet

[DigitalMonster]

So can I run on a multisig wallet too? I need it and two ln wallets that I created for the test. it turns out that all three should be run with this argument, right? All transactions with bitcoins there simply will not be present in the history later when to return to the main working network?

No, LN is only available for [standard] Native SegWit Electrum wallets.
Read the thread I linked above to learn more about the usage of Electrum's LN feature: Electrum Lightning Network walkthrough

Testnet funds have no value and in a separate blockchain than Bitcoin's.
You can easily get funds using testnet faucets: List of Testnet BTC Faucet

I mean that now I transfer over the real network first from a multisig wallet to two already existing LN. In the test network, how do I do that?

[nc50lc]

"I suggest custodian wallets for amounts like 0.00069376 a year." Can I tell you more about this? what did you mean?

For example, my clients will transfer me let's say 60 rubles a month in total, this is 0.00005788 for a year this is 0.00069376

Because, you'll have to pay a fee that might take a portion of it to spend that balance because you'll end up with lots of very small inputs.
Transaction fee will be based from the fee rate (which you'll set in the wallet) and the transaction's virtual size which will get higher if it has a lot of inputs.
1sat/B is still good enough to consolidate them though.

Custodial wallets will just send from their hot wallet when you want to withdraw (minus their fee which can be cheaper for low-priority).
Personally, I'll use a custodial wallet for that amount.

LN is a very good choice however won't let you receive 'savings' from your 'clients' unless you have enough inbound capacity.
And you don't have enough funds to open a channel of 0.002 BTC then use submarine swap or spend some satoshi.
You need to find a way to increase your inbound capacity like mentioned in the previous sentence.

I mean that now I transfer over the real network first from a multisig wallet to two already existing LN. In the test network, how do I do that?

I don't get it.
But everything you can do with mainnet, you can do the same with testnet.

[DigitalMonster]

"I suggest custodian wallets for amounts like 0.00069376 a year." Can I tell you more about this? what did you mean?

For example, my clients will transfer me let's say 60 rubles a month in total, this is 0.00005788 for a year this is 0.00069376

Because, you'll have to pay a fee that might take a portion of it to spend that balance because you'll end up with lots of very small inputs.
Transaction fee will be based from the fee rate (which you'll set in the wallet) and the transaction's virtual size which will get higher if it has a lot of inputs.
1sat/B is still good enough to consolidate them though.

Custodial wallets will just send from their hot wallet when you want to withdraw (minus their fee which can be cheaper for low-priority).
Personally, I'll use a custodial wallet for that amount.

LN is a very good choice however won't let you receive 'savings' from your 'clients' unless you have enough inbound capacity.
And you don't have enough funds to open a channel of 0.002 BTC then use submarine swap or spend some satoshi.
You need to find a way to increase your inbound capacity like mentioned in the previous sentence.

I will always have sufficient incoming capacity, since all clients will open channels to me with sufficient local capacity, for me it will be just incoming if there is no routing of the passing nodes, which I am going to do - do not use routing nodes between us

[DigitalMonster]

I mean that now I transfer over the real network first from a multisig wallet to two already existing LN. In the test network, how do I do that?

I don't get it.
But everything you can do with mainnet, you can do the same with testnet.

How do I open my multisig wallet on testnet ? So that the funds transferred from it are transferred in a test way and not in a real way

[Rath_]

How do I open my multisig wallet on testnet ? So that the funds transferred from it are transferred in a test way and not in a real way

Launch "Electrum Testnet" or add "-testnet" to startup parameters of the Electrum executable. You won't be able to open your existing (mainnet) wallet; you will have to create a new one. Also, you will need some testnet coins. You can get them from any testnet faucet.

[nc50lc]

-snip-

I will always have sufficient incoming capacity, since all clients will open channels to me with sufficient local capacity, for me it will be just incoming if there is no routing of the passing nodes, which I am going to do - do not use routing nodes between us

Okay, so that's the issue in the "Lightning Network Walktrough" thread is all about.

Unfortunately, I haven't found a way to open channels between two Electrum wallets either.
I have tried adding the "IP Address" but it always results with "Timeout" or "Cancelled Error".

You can try it: instead of using just the nodeid, follow it with an '@' sign then the PC/ISP's IP address like for example:
0369c4ddc6076646ddf30ad58c4beca8eee399557063f69a17xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@17x.1xx.2x.4x
Both Electrum wallets should be active.

[DigitalMonster]

You can try it: instead of using just the nodeid, follow it with an '@' sign then the PC/ISP's IP address like for example:
0369c4ddc6076646ddf30ad58c4beca8eee399557063f69a17xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@17x.1xx.2x.4x
Both Electrum wallets should be active.

And if both wallets are behind NAT?

[nc50lc]

And if both wallets are behind NAT?

I don't know if it will work in the first place since I haven't successfully opened a channel between two Electrum wallets yet and AFAIK there's no related article/documentation to point you at.
So I can't walk you through that particular issue, sry.

For now, try to use the remapped address instead of your ISP's.