Shire Society Federation asked 24 days ago

Dishonorable peers

I've had 2 dishonorable peers so far, both opened and then later closed their channels to me in violation of the swap agreement while the channels were imbalanced in their favor (more sats on their side).
This unfairly burdens my node having opened the channel to another honorable peer but losing inbound liquidity when the dishonorable peer closes.
If I open any more channels in a swap agreement, I would require the peer opening a channel to my node to pay a deposit prior to opening a channel. Otherwise, canceling a swap agreement due to one dishonorable peer causes an unreimbursed loss.

LN+ answered 24 days ago

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

BrunswickGanadoTutuilla answered 22 days ago

How do you know the reason a channel is closed?

Shire Society Federation answered 21 days ago

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

Shire Society Federation answered 21 days ago

Hodl.Doctor answered 20 days ago

We have had  node
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.

LN+ answered 20 days ago

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

Hodl.Doctor answered 20 days ago

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

LN+ answered 20 days ago

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

aybabtu answered 20 days ago

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.

Catweazle answered 19 days ago

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:

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.

LN+ answered 19 days ago

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. 

Hodl.Doctor answered 18 days ago

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

LN+ answered 18 days ago

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

Shire Society Federation answered 17 days ago

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.

LN+ answered 17 days ago

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.

Shire Society Federation answered 7 days ago

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.

Please sign in to post answers.