chriso on Nostr: Not you have it backwards. I didn’t have much outgoing liquidity. My partner had ...

Not you have it backwards. I didn’t have much outgoing liquidity. My partner had the outgoing, so if the channel closed, the sats on his/her side would have gone back onchain. Then they’d be down liquidity on their node and need to find another partner to open with as well as would incur additional fees.

It would appear that they seized an opportunity when a route passed from their side (send side) to my side (routing through me) that pushed liquidity off their side of the channel (to my side) and then closed the channel.

When the channel closes, it sends whatever outgoing liquidity I had in the channel back onchain. Therefore it costs me sats when the channel closes which can’t be avoided, but it also costs me to open a new channel.

In the end, it’s not that big of a deal. But the right thing to do would have been to close the channel when all the outgoing was on their side if they were unhappy with the channel. They made the decision, they should have incurred the hit. Now my node is out of balance and I’ll be looking for a replacement channel. As well as I have to wait on the funds to settle back onchain.