Closed starius closed 11 months ago
private channels are exempt
Can you elaborate on that, please? Why are private channels exempt?
Since private channels (most likely) won't be
used for routing other than the last hop, they bear a smaller
risk that we must force close them in order to resolve a HTLC
up/downstream. Hence we exclude them from the count of anchor
channels
Thank you!
Private channels don't provide anchors, do they?
they do
How such anchors would be used in absence of reserve funds?
Without any on chain funds the anchors can't be used because the child tx couldn't be formed to do CPFP
The reserve is there to make sure the node can react in a timely manner without user interaction when urgent (as mentioned above when needing to resolve up/downstream HTLCs). For confirming the funds of a force close without HTLCs (or non-urgent ones) the user would still need to add on-chain funds, but that wouldn't be as time critical. Or you rely on the other side to CPFP with their anchor.
To summarize: when it comes to anchor outputs, taproot channels don't behave any differently than the previous anchor output channel type.
Background
I used LND version v0.17.0-beta.rc3 and opened a taproot channel on testnet. I discovered that I have no reserved funds after that. Is it a expected behavior for a taproot channel? If yes, how does it work in case reserved funds would be needed for an old channel?
Your environment
lnd
: v0.17.0-beta.rc3uname -a
on *Nix):Linux dev 6.1.0-11-amd64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Debian 6.1.38-4 (2023-08-08) x86_64 GNU/Linux
btcd
,bitcoind
, or other backend: neutrinoCommand line of LND:
Steps to reproduce
Expected behaviour
I thought 10k sats should had left onchain to use in case the node needs them to bump force close transaction. At least, that happened in mainnet for regular channels.
Actual behaviour
No funds left onchain.