Ok, so limit things to 100 channels... Still don't see why the constants get into unreasonable load here...
On January 15, 2018 2:53:07 AM UTC, ZmnSCPxj <zmnsc...@protonmail.com> wrote: >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
