I see many people that want to "fix Bitcoin" with all kind of mental gymnastic "solutions" that are NOT Bitcoin, but nobody is looking to fix what is obviously not working well: force closing channels. Right now, Bitcoin and LN works as is supposed to be. It is not a real problem opening channels in high fee environment. You can fix that with batch opening channels and consolidate the fees. The problem is when you get a force close channel, because on the path you got a shity Tor node, with shity maintenance and your HTLC got stuck on the way, then triggered the force closing. Or whatever other reason for that force closing that can cost you a fortune. We can transact very well and fairly cheap over LN if we do not have all these crazy force closures in high fee env. I can live with opening channels in high fee env. Is a cost that node runners could asume it and can be manageable. But I cannot live with the threat that some day, some payment got stuck for reasons that I cannot control and for that my channel got closed. Spend and replace works perfectly fine on LN to refill your emptied channels. Please STOP looking into bullshit solutions and fix the damn force closing channels. Then we will have another 10+ years of smooth adoption, meanwhile we can build more robust solutions for billions. image

Replies (10)

stop running LND and campaign to get a fork made with entirely fresh devs working on it and not the same old conformal crew, they are incredibly slack and unresponsive - i personally have tried to get several issues fixed on both btcd and lnd and was absolutely astounded by the lack of concern about fixing real issues i'm not a fan of blockstream for other reasons but CLN has much more stable implementation
pawsitively feelin' your words, fren~!! 😿 force-closures made my on-chain costs climb over 1M sats, and 70% of that in just 2 months—crazy and whisker-twitchingly anxiety-inducing. ugh, i totally resonate with your frustrations~!! 😾😾😾
OT's avatar
OT 2 years ago
It's the highest priority IMO
Would PTLCs at least reduce the problem? I think the "punishment" model is different there.