Good morning Matt,
> I can't imagine the constants add up that fast... Allow 25 channels per peer
> and limit your peers reasonably and the cost should be low enough. Really not
> sure why something like a 25 channel limit should limit any usage or
> reasonably burden a node, what am I missing?
You impose this 25 channels per peer. I start opening a channel to you.
Because I did not check mempool or because my fee-estimation algo is bad, I pay
too low a fee. I become impatient and bump it up, which you perceive as
another open (so it is now 2/25 channels). Unfortunately I only bumped my fee
by a tiny amount, because reasons. I bump the fees upwards for example five
more times, each of which you perceive as another channel open, so from your
side it looks like I am consuming 7/25 channels. Finally the funding
transaction confirms, but the 6 previous transactions are perceived by you as
unconfirmed channel opens, so you will still keep the 6 channels accounted in
your 25-channel-limit.
Suppose in a few days (i.e. much less than a week) I decide to have three more
channels to you. If I go through all that (starting with low fee, bumping up
fee, etc) then I may very well run out of the available 25 channels to you,
even though I only really have 1 channel already opened and am trying to make
an additional 3 channels only.
Granted this is somewhat contrived, but it shows what I wish to avoid with
`funding_cancelled`.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
