-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
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
LND nodes overpay quite significantly on mutual closing TX's #4413
Comments
Isn't that 3k the absolute fee? That's what's sent over the wire, not the fee rate. |
I wish.... but no. Just look up the https://blockstream.info/tx/108a5cd42c97fbc846f774c6fc8b7f5dcdd0206820abef9afce9c2437c522340 all my recent mutual closures with LND nodes have been even more expensive: https://1ml.com/node/02e9046555a9665145b0dbd7f135744598418df7d61d3660659641886ef1274844/channels?order=closedchannels in fact, most have been even more expensive than this recent force closure: https://blockstream.info/tx/3ecebdf1a9312d43ae544032ced864f628f7ceca52ca7fe1d8bbeac29a8eb17a So it seems to me, LND appoints force closures the exact same priority as mutual closures. Or is there any other explanation? For all mutual closures my node starts negotiating in the low triple digit area and my LND peers refuse to settle for anything less than 3k per Kw while initially proposing significantly more. |
|
Would you consider low balling the fee when you lower the target and maybe even give your users the option to set a custom target? In eclair the setting is already configurable and I had very good experience with a 144 block target. Tx's usually confirm within hours and as you said, even during high fee periods there is always the option to CPFP if the funds are needed quicker. There is the downside of possibly externalizing fees, but the upside is that everyone saves a lot of money 95% of the time or more. I'd say this is the better approach. Especially when you make it configurable and people who are unhappy can adjust accordingly. edit: edit2:
This is with the Bitrefill node which had quite a few of those recently. Maybe @juscamarena has more infos on that. |
I'm currently in the process of migrating a relatively large node from Eclair to LND and can concur that it would be desirable to really push down fees during these periods when mempool empties regularly. In Eclair I was also targeting 144 blocks, and a rebuttal against a cheating old state is the only time I would imagine timeliness is a concern. According to this: |
You can already configure it through the
Yes, see
We're already aware of this and have fixes coming soon.
@STAWKEYE yes, but that's concerning force closes. This issue is regarding cooperative closes, which allow you to set your desired fee as long as the remote party agrees. |
Is there anything happening in this regard? today I closed a couple channels with LND nodes after many hours of 1 s/b tx confirming and my peers still refused to close for anything less than 100 s/b. This is REALLY painful and stopping to waste so much money should be of utmost priority imho.
|
It's difficult as in that situation you either need to chose to not compromise on their preference, or just end negotiation and try again. On our end the only thing we can do that isn't burdensome on the user (non-interactive) is to add a new flag to let users override the default value on start up. |
That would be a very big help IMHO. I think most people are just not aware of the issue. If something like this would be implemented together with some sort of explanation (either via the prompt itself or via the change logs or both) this could help alleviate the issue a fair bit! See also this: https://twitter.com/lnbig_com/status/1299319394259079171
and this: https://twitter.com/lnbig_com/status/1299320526507311104
I'm pretty sure, 90% of those losses LNBIG can't quite pin down is due to the crazy high onchain fees LND is wasting with the current standard settings. I think not working on how funds are currently wasted unnecessarily on fees risks losing significant network liquidity due to node operators becoming fed up with constantly losing money. |
Any progress on this? It keeps hurting me and probably everyone else a lot: ACINQ/eclair#1583 |
Nothing yet, but #4732 was just opened. We might be able to address it for the next major release (v0.12.0). |
Please do! The fees are seriously painful and overpaying is such an unnecessary waste! |
I closed a couple channels with LND nodes recently and even though on-chain fees are quite cheep right now, my LND peers weren't willing to settle for anything less than >3k per Kw. Even July 21st, after a long period of mostly half empty blocks:
I know, fee estimation is a very complicated matter and there isn't a good solution at the moment, but would you consider using less expensive standard settings? Especially since it's always quite simple to get a TX unstuck via CPFP in the off chance it actually gets stuck for a significant amount of time.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: