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

Difficult to reach agreement of unilateral closing fee #6756

Closed
tsjk opened this issue Oct 10, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

Difficult to reach agreement of unilateral closing fee #6756

tsjk opened this issue Oct 10, 2023 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
in diagnostic issue under diagnostic

Comments

@tsjk
Copy link

tsjk commented Oct 10, 2023

Issue and Steps to Reproduce

At times I have several nodes that fail to connect because an agreement of the unilateral closing fee cannot be reached.

The error is visible in the logs with entries of the type:

INFO    <remode_node_id>-chan#<sequence_nr>: Peer transient failure in CHANNELD_NORMAL: channeld WARNING: warning channel <channel_id>: update_fee x outside range a-b (currently y)

where x < a. Often x < y, but this doesn't matter.

The log entries appear on connect attempts, which may be either manual or recurring retries.

I realized that in my particular case this means that my node is suggesting a fee that is lower than what the peer can accept. I've seen that, if I call feerates perkw, it says that unilateral_close equals x. However, I have also observed cases where unilateral_close >> x, but I guess this means that there is some lag between the current estimates and what is proposed on connection.

I think that it might make sense to introduce some user configuration here together with detection of what the remote peer's bounds are, so that one can set leniency in accordance to one's risk assessment. I for one would accept a higher fee, but might be averse to fees that risk my funds getting stuck on closure. Others might make different judgements.

getinfo output

$ lightning-cli getinfo
{
   "id": "<snip>",
   "alias": "<snip>",
   "color": "000000",
   "num_peers": <snip>,
   "num_pending_channels": 0,
   "num_active_channels": <snip>,
   "num_inactive_channels": 0,
   "address": [
      {
         "type": "ipv4",
         "address": "<snip>",
         "port": <snip>
      },
      {
         "type": "torv3",
         "address": "<snip>",
         "port": <snip>
      }
   ],
   "binding": [
      {
         "type": "ipv4",
         "address": "0.0.0.0",
         "port": 9735
      }
   ],
   "version": "v23.05.2",
   "blockheight": 811505,
   "network": "bitcoin",
   "fees_collected_msat": <snip>,
   "lightning-dir": "/home/lightning/.lightning/bitcoin",
   "our_features": {
      "init": "08a0880a2269a2",
      "node": "88a0880a2269a2",
      "channel": "",
      "invoice": "02000002024100"
   }
}
@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo self-assigned this Oct 10, 2023
@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo added this to the v23.11 milestone Oct 10, 2023
@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo added the in diagnostic issue under diagnostic label Oct 10, 2023
@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo modified the milestones: v23.11, v24.02 Oct 26, 2023
@cdecker cdecker removed this from the v24.02 milestone Feb 13, 2024
@vincenzopalazzo
Copy link
Collaborator

This should be fixed in #6833

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
in diagnostic issue under diagnostic
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants