You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Our node received some warnings that seems to indicate a c-lightning node that wants to use lightning/bolts#847 improperly: Feerange 177sat-182sat below minimum acceptable 183sat
And then the c-lightning node disconnects.
The closing_signed messages do not contain a tlv stream with a fee_range, so it should use the legacy closing negotiation flow instead of disconnecting and refusing to make progress.
I don't know what version of c-lightning our peer is using, I can share their node_id if that's useful.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
On the way I found that our fee estimation for closing txs was not actually using the weight of the closing tx, but the final commitment tx. This is v. different for anchor_outputs!
I saw this too, closing with a c-lightning node. It's complaining because it considers 183 the minimum valid fee. It probably started at (say) 183-1000, then it sent 183, and when it gets 176 the possible range is now 175 - 182, which is below its minimum.
Our node received some warnings that seems to indicate a c-lightning node that wants to use lightning/bolts#847 improperly:
Feerange 177sat-182sat below minimum acceptable 183sat
I observe the following flow of messages:
And then the c-lightning node disconnects.
The
closing_signed
messages do not contain a tlv stream with afee_range
, so it should use the legacy closing negotiation flow instead of disconnecting and refusing to make progress.I don't know what version of c-lightning our peer is using, I can share their
node_id
if that's useful.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: