Dishonorable peers

I will follow up on this situation and if needed ban the nodes breaking the agreement. 

How do you know the reason a channel is closed?

The 2 dishonorable peers explained why they closed the channel and why they weren't honoring the agreement.

https://lightningnetwork.plus/nodes/03154d3bbf93e06dedc34f41c5096c436849b1470210f4a30151093437d9173ce7
https://lightningnetwork.plus/nodes/033533e2db6311c1d417d41279c067d8713ad8a7d577a0d91e65df2f6a82c5b862

We have had  node
https://lightningnetwork.plus/nodes/02c10ada6c6bed574f216d4decb799743921da2ed13dc51c410bc9559c1f90acb9
twice in 6 months without warning or explanation close the channel long before the swap expired.

If LN+ is unwilling to give users ability to block such nodes here, should at least give the option in swaps to charge for opening inbound.

I like the ideas, also we will have the rating towards the peer you are opening to. 

The ones routinely causing such problems don't care about ratings. They will only stop if there is significant financial penalty or cost involved.

Yes, I will continously ban them from the site. That's best I think.

The 2 dishonorable peers explained why they closed the channel and why they weren't honoring the agreement.

 My node force closed as Shire Society Federation went offline while it had open HTLCs with my node, so force close was mandotory on my side (no user interaction, just what a node needs to do in this scenario). Tried to explain up & down, but well... LN+ you can verify this in our swap communication, where I got abused by Shire.

Now that's a funny discussion. Reason enough to present the real facts....

I offered a triangle and when the channels were open, it was agreed that we would rebalance and set the fees to 0. I also told the peers that I had the rebalancing script ready and was only waiting for Shire Society Federation to set the fees to zero. The third partner immediately complied. 

Suddenly Shire Society Federation appeared and started to rebalance the triangle on his own without being successful. He had set his base fee to 400 sats (!) and an HTLC limit of 300,000 sats. I asked him several times to set the fees to 0. I was in front of my computer and could have immediately gone into action. He did not comply several times and instead tried to rebalance and played with wild fees without removing the HTLC limit. At some point I had to realize that Shire Society Federation is obviously not able to follow simple agreements within the group and / or set his node as it is usual for a rebalancing. 
Everyone can follow the discussion here: https://lightningnetwork.plus/swaps/8484

It must be clear that I do not want to be in any connection with such people like Shire Society Federation. Therefore I have closed the channel to him immediately. In the meantime 400.000 sats were routed on the channel. Perhaps someone will manage to explain to him that he has not suffered any loss. He has earned fees from the routing. His sats are still there. They are just in another channel and may have earned permanent routing fees in the meantime. If he doesn't understand the basics of administrating a node, he shouldn't be allowed on such a site in the first place. This guy is just ridiculous. 

As for the problem on my other triangle, I can only say that I had clearly stated in the comments that I only look for peers with a "Good" rating at Terminal Web. If someone joins the Triangle who doesn't have this rating, he can't expect me to open a channel to him. If I want to buy a black car and the seller comes with a white car, he can't expect me to buy it anyway. In this respect I am not to blame.

When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful & difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid.

Thanks for the explanations. Sorry about the bad experience! I’m taking the feedback and thinking / working on improvements for the system. 

I don’t want to decide who is right or wrong here. We all have slightly different expectations for cooperation. Nobody is banned. 

Happy to compensate for any losses if needed.

Let’s move on from this unfortunate situation for now. 

Please message me if you have any questions or comments. 

Do you keep track of the nodes that routinely leave their swaps before the contract is over, or just when someone complains?

I do keep track of the data and I have plans for it. 🫡

1. Yes, we don't have an agreement on reopens so it's up to interpretation what is reasonable.
2. Yes, you're correct. It's a learning process for all of us.
I think if there is a disagreement between participants in a triangle, just break the triangle. It's lost channel opening fees, but it can be considered cost of doing business when you don't know and trust the other participants personally. It works most of the time, but not every single time. At least that's my experience. Of course, there will be variation in luck.

I agree that it would be cool to have protocol level enforcement, but even if the channel IS forcibly kept open, you can still screw people over by not having enough inbound or outbound so the channel in question becomes essentially useless despite it being open. Baby steps... we will get there.

Regarding dishonorable peer 1: There is no documented source for "force close was mandotory on my side". 
Regardless, they agreed to maintain the channel for however long, but refused to reopen the channel and maintain it open after they FC'd it.

Regarding dishonorable peer 2: They wrote: "He had set his base fee to 400 sats (!) and an HTLC limit of 300,000 sats." These fee settings were on the new channel they opened to my node which I had 0 outbound liquidity to prevent requests to route through an unusable path, a very common technique that works.
They misunderstood the information they saw for the channel they opened out to my node (100% their liquidity, so only their settings applied) and blamed me for their misunderstanding and impatience:
Of course, they wouldn't pay fees balancing out into the channel (those fees would only charge for the other way, i.e. my base fee of 400 sat was irrelevant for balancing from their node to mine) and similarly, the 300K sat limit was only for my outbound routing as only their limit applies out from their node and it did in fact route 400K in a single transaction as I showed in the swap page as they rage closed the channel.

Unfortunately, until some market incentives can be incorporated into lnd it is not a reliable way to trade long term liquidity.

This site hides why nodes get negative ratings.
There should be a list of swappers that received a negative rating.
This omission prevents potential swap partners from seeing those details.
A simple quick fix would be to continuosly list the swaps with negative ratings (without being bumped off their node page) and as long as a closed swap has a negative rating, reopen swap pages for viewing and comment by other node runners to discuss why the node runner gave a negative rating until it is resolved.

Like many others in this topic, I also have bad experiences with Shire_Society_Federation. 

His node force closed our channel, and when I notified him about that, he gives me a bad rating out of nothing.

I never experienced such a rude person on this site, and if I read the other stories in this topic, It seems Im not alone.

Responding to dishonorable peer 3 who apparently took advantage of the same glitch that dishonorable peer 1 used to FC a channel, they use CLN to cause the channel to a peer using LND to be FORCE CLOSED.
In this case, they had about 75% of the channel liquidity on their side, allowing them to recoup more coin than their peer while ignoring their promise to keep the channel open for however many more months.
I rated them negatively for that reason, not for wasting my time by only offering problems instead of solutions.

What are you talking about? I am not even using CLN? I use LND 0.15. 

Fact is that you closed the channel, and gave a negative rating for no reason at all.

Even if you use LND despite the evidence (no dual funded swaps shown on your profile). The exact mechanism of how you 2 abused the swap process is relatively irrelevant.
You both then failed to negotiate a valid resolution for ending the value promise of liquidity you made.
In the case of dishonorable peer 3, you used my rating as an excuse to take our negotiations public rather than wait and observe my removal of the negative rating upon reading your message notifying me of such, I had forgotten about the negative rating as it was made prior to the messages were began as I was hoping to save the time and trouble of negotiating a settlement with you of the breach of contract you are currently non-performing on.