Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

mass closure again #1529

Closed
robtex opened this issue May 28, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

mass closure again #1529

robtex opened this issue May 28, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@robtex
Copy link

robtex commented May 28, 2018

2018-05-27 10:56:45.762 [INF] CRTR: Block 000000000000000000391f3392faf6b5a9cb720c23dc502e6bdafcbab8c5cae3 (height=524634) closed 203 channels

I suspect this is yet another issue with disagreement of fees, and c-lightning decides to close the channels down.
It's far too trigger happy. Can't it solve it another way? like just start a timer and if it still disagrees after X blocks, then it can [preferably cooperatively] close it.

We are ending up with two lightning networks now, if channels between lnd and clightning can't be stable. It will certainly hurt routing a lot. We old guys remember when the same thing happened to Internet. Wasn't pretty.

Thanks in advance

@ZmnSCPxj
Copy link
Collaborator

Delaying to do a cooperative close on a bad feerate is attackable: #1443 (comment) (although it is possible the attack scenario is unfeasible)

What exactly is the fee disagreement? If the lnd side is proposing a fee of 250 sat/ksipa then c-lightning will never accept that since bitcoind will never accept that either: #1251 . See also Eclair issue, which will also be fixed similarly (i.e. impose 253 sat/ksipa minimum): ACINQ/eclair#602

@cdecker
Copy link
Member

cdecker commented Jan 6, 2019

The fee smoothing implemented in #1650 has reduced this issue massively. In the long term we will remove fee commitments from the protocol altogether, finally removing this source of disagreement.

@cdecker cdecker closed this as completed Jan 6, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants