Hey guys, I've been diving into how the Lightning Network works, especially regarding channel balances and the asymmetries we see in the market. I'm trying to figure out some limitations in the current setups. It seems like while channel announcements show a lot, like fees and CLTV deltas, the liquidity focused on specific channels remains pretty private. This makes route construction really dependent on historical data and some guesswork instead of solid knowledge.
I think I’m starting to understand your points better. Quick question though. It seems like ambiguous failure messages can complicate things. How do current implementations decide to penalize a channel when there's a failure? And how can they avoid excessively punishing channels that might just be low on liquidity?
From my experience running nodes, it’s a big mistake to just write off a channel after one failure. It’s like driving... sometimes you hit a traffic jam but the road's still good. Good pathfinding is about finding another route or waiting a bit. Not just giving up on a channel forever.
Yeah, I had some posts deleted too, not sure what’s up with that. Anyway, back to your point. Channels don’t get blacklisted right away for a single miss; that’s just not how it works. Instead, there’s a score system in place that updates based on failures and successes over time. If a payment fails, that score drops, but it can rise again with successful transactions. It’s all about balancing the metrics.