feels like lightning net routing broken since update

Major said:
Yeah hear d this shit too routes that worked fine suddenly failing. I think its related to the bitcoin core 28.0 ZMQ changes breaking node connections. Most peopl dont realize their nodes disconnected from network bc the software doesnt warn you properly
Click to expand...
what zmq changes? thought that was just some technical backend stuff
 
root777 said:
franky was right about this stuff years ago tbh. lnet routing becomes more unreliable as network grows bc liquidity gets spread thinner across more channels. it doesnt work when you need every hop in 5+ node route to have sufficient balance in correct direction
Click to expand...
THANK YOU finally someone who understands basic math instead of blindly promoting broken tech. LN fanboys been promising "itll get better" for 6 years while it gets worse
when you actually use it instead of just reading marketing materials you discover its fundamentally flawed IOU system
 
sk8er said:
dude just use onchain why make life difficult lol. ln fees might be lower but if payments fail half the time whats the point
Click to expand...
bc onchain fees like $15 rn for anything urgent. cant pay that for coffee
hack3rcon said:
it may be caused by unattributed payment failures where error messages getting corrupted during route discovery. heard such bug reported years ago but apparently still not fixed
if im right your payment fails but you dont know which node caused it so cant exclude bad routes
Click to expand...
is there workaround for the routing issues?
 
DaveGasFee said:
You dont use LNet regularly and don't understand how routing works so maybe stop spreading FUD. yes theres issues but saying "completely broken" is nonsense. I process dozens of payments daily through my node and success rate still over 90% if you know what youre doing
Click to expand...
"if you know what youre doing" perfect example of LN defender cognitive dissonance. when system only works for technical experts who spend hours managing channels its NOT a scaling solution
stop acting like an inexperienced pr guy and admit the network has fundamental problems that cant be fixed by "knowing what youre doing" shite
 
@DaveF what routes you using? Wondering if certain node operators updated their software while others havnt, causing incompatibility
Been seeing lot of force closures on channels to nodes that havnt updated since june
 
hack3rcon said:
@Timmy98 temporary fix is using smaller payment amounts and MPP. split your 150k into 3x 50k payments
also avoid routes through popular nodes like ACINQ and bitrefill's node bc theyre overloaded. use submarine swaps if desperate
Click to expand...
tried MPP but even 50k chunks failing. might just be my node setup tho, running umbrel on pi4
getting "temporary channel failure" on every route even tho both sides show sufficient liquidity
 
Timmy98 said:
tried MPP but even 50k chunks failing. might just be my node setup tho, running umbrel on pi4
getting "temporary channel failure" on every route even tho both sides show sufficient liquidity
Click to expand...
"temporary channel failure" usually means receiving node cant forward payment bc their outbound liquidity exhausted or partner offline
so this is liquidity management nightmare that makes LN unusable for normal people. you shouldnt need PhD to send money
 
Major said:
@DaveF what routes you using? Wondering if certain node operators updated their software while others havnt, causing incompatibility
Been seeing lot of force closures on channels to nodes that havnt updated since june
Click to expand...
Mostly using routes through Lightning Labs nodes and a few well-connected routing nodes in EU. Avvoiding smaller nodes bc they go offline randomly
Timmy98 said:
tried MPP but even 50k chunks failing. might just be my node setup tho, running umbrel on pi4
getting "temporary channel failure" on every route even tho both sides show sufficient liquidity
Click to expand...
Umbrel on pi4 might be underpowered for current network size and try restarting LND and syncing channels
 
damn perfect example of LN centralization Dave. "avoid smaller nodes" - so much for decentralized payments when you need to rely on few big corporations
this exactly what we predicted years ago. Ln inevitably becomes centralized hub system controlled by exchanges and big companies
 
been trying to pay for VPN renewal for 3 days now. every LN payment fails but onchain works well tho
starting to think we should just admit LN experiment failed and focus on actual bitcoin scaling instead of this broken sideshow
 
DaveGasFee said:
Mostly using routes through Lightning Labs nodes and a few well-connected routing nodes in EU. Avvoiding smaller nodes bc they go offline randomly

Umbrel on pi4 might be underpowered for current network size and try restarting LND and syncing channels
Click to expand...
restarted everything twice, still getting failures. checked mempool.space and my channels show as online with 2.5M sats capacity each side
really frustrating bc worked perfectly until this month. considering just closing channels and going back to onchain
 
@goldkingcoiner youre not wrong about centralization. latest stats show top 20 nodes control over 60% of network capacity. thats worse than traditional banking. the routing algo naturally favors well-connected hubs which leads to hub-and-spoke topology instead of mesh network
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom