User Bitnomad on this site is consciously, consistently closing their channels to swaps
I'd like to ask for the node '02697565a1d173a7e053268989655f5e734c8e9c9085ec4ea8ae112a52b3eca6fa' by user Bitnomad 🏝️to be banned from participating in swaps, due to their consistenly disruptive behaviour in the community.
They apply to swaps, open up a channel themselves, waits for a couple of days after swap completion and then close both channels (in and out bound) prior to the agreed swap end-date. It makes no sense for node operators such as them to be allowed to participate in swaps with agreed terms, just to break them. In addition, it is also affecting other node operators' liquidity - which is the point of a swap to begin with.
Waiting patiently for other users experience with said node operator and LN+ to reply. Thanks in advance.
@Bitnoob: I dunno man, 22M node size reduced to 1.5M in a single day doesn't seem like a new node operator to me. The fact that they had this many channels and this much capital on their node, I don't think they were just 'trying things out' - plus, they are applying for new swaps as we speak. You can tell they were participating in 16 swaps on their page. image.png2.71 KBI agree with you that ratings should help with picking participants. However, this only works if there is a way to kick participants out of a swap. This is not possible as of now.
And I must add: If there was any kind of communication from their side, it'd be a different, more understanding emotion us other swap participants would be feeling. After looking into their node a bit more, it seems like they decided that the lightning network just isn't for them. The fact that they closed so many channels at once, plus the two swaps stuck in limbo on their page hint at that.
@ swap.router Looking at swap ID 5241, Bitnomad created this swap on 30 Nov and the next day has a message that they do not have adequate funds. That sounds suspicious, as why would anyone open a swap without adequate funds? Also, if this node is trying to participate in new swaps while not funding swaps that they already opened, that behavior is concerning. If this node is trying to get inbound liquidity only as a swap participant has commented, then it is selfish behavior. I agree that good way to start discouraging such behavior is to have the ratings of the node opening the swap displayed prominently at sign-up so other nodes can decide if they wish to participate.
I agree. In addition, the ability to choose to remove swap participants as the swap initiator should be a given. Otherwise initiators would be forced to part take in a swap with offending node operators.
I think banning nodes leads to a slippery slope. It appears that this node is a new user, only been active for 19 days and already participated in 3 successful swaps. It may be that this user is unaware of the liquidity problems they are causing to other swap participants by closing channels. I can see that this node has racked up almost equal numbers of positive and negative ratings. Ratings may be the best way at present for swap participants to decide if one wants to participate in swaps with such nodes. I am open to others' views but I feel banning nodes is not right.
I too was forced closed a new channel by Bitnomad. 3000 sats in fees. I think previous negative rating should be prominent on swap signup. He should remedy his rating by reopening channels from previous swaps, balancing at his cost, or offering to pay invoices on fees incurred by all the channels he force closed.
