The Xpay option worked for me when I had routing issues.
Newbie Q for Paul - If I opened an LND to LND channel with Greg for payment routing, once the channel was open could he add liquidity on his side or would opening a channel in reverse be better or the same thing?
Although Xpay is active in the setup the route didn’t work as expected. I have since figured the freaking thing out (with much assistance for Paul). LND, RTL and Alby are now working. I’ll test Alby when I move a few miners back to Braiins to make sure the lightning payout is working from that pool to my Alby wallet address.
Adding a second channel from the other direction is one way (though it costs a base layer transaction fee). Another way that is entirely over lightning (so low-fee and instantaneous) is a circular rebalance. Either of you could initiate this.
If Greg were to initiate it, he would go to his list of channels in RTL, and under Actions next to his ACINQ channel, he would select “Circular Rebalance”. He would input the amount to rebalance and select your channel for “Receive from Peer”. He would select a max fee rate and click Rebalance. Behind the scenes, this would create an invoice to himself with a route that goes out through the ACINQ channel and back in through his channel with your node. The end result (from his node’s perspective) is outbound liquidity reducing on the ACINQ channel and increasing on your channel.
If you initiated the circular rebalance, the process would look similar, except you would select your channel with his node in the first step, and then select another channel (with ACINQ, etc) for Receive From Peer.
Top of the morning to you @paul
No were to put this really so I’ll ask here. I see my private channel in CL is down. The log shows this:
2025-06-27T07:07:02-06:00 2025-06-27T13:07:02.611Z INFO 039d56f3db41cb3a870d1f12c832c727a8b2abc68f3d64563d9234fe7206fd4744-channeld-chan#16: Peer connection lost
2025-06-27T07:07:02-06:00 2025-06-27T13:07:02.611Z INFO 039d56f3db41cb3a870d1f12c832c727a8b2abc68f3d64563d9234fe7206fd4744-chan#16: Peer transient failure in CHANNELD_NORMAL: channeld: Owning subdaemon channeld died (62208)
2025-06-27T07:17:48-06:00 2025-06-27T13:17:48.843Z INFO 02628fa1fab09c2a8aefa44aeac5a7f2e8bdbc6592c4f35705bd4df1ff5133aea4-channeld-chan#14: Peer connection lost
2025-06-27T07:17:48-06:00 2025-06-27T13:17:48.844Z INFO 02628fa1fab09c2a8aefa44aeac5a7f2e8bdbc6592c4f35705bd4df1ff5133aea4-chan#14: Peer transient failure in CHANNELD_NORMAL: channeld: Owning subdaemon channeld died (62208)
2025-06-27T07:28:21-06:00 2025-06-27T13:28:21.544Z INFO 02abb8c4a2d97453d2540edf334e83436ab7584cc42d475a2e2f88c46390ea9055-channeld-chan#19: Peer connection lost
That is the only channel down? Is this a CL thing? Should I be concerned?
Thanks
ps - Actually I see it is the Start9 HQ peer connection itself. Not on my end I don’t think. Disregard. I’ll see if it works itself out. Sorry
Fletcher - do you want me to help you out with this? Glad to if you need it.
Sent you a DM, sir 
Check and verify:
I closed all channels on the Core Lightning node. Currently there are 0 sats on the Maximum Send side. To my knowledge as it appears to me is all sats from closed channels go’s into the Onchain wallet in Core Lighting.
I added the Core Lightning Node as a peer in RTL Dashboard and then opened a 60000 sat channel from LND to the Core Lightning node. I had opened this channel once before but I made a mistake and set it to public instead of private. The newly added channel is now set to private.
So now since all channels are closed in Core Lightning except the incoming channel from RTL/LND every time OCEAN pays the lightning payout the Maximum Send size should increase. Correct??
A side caveat. I noticed that Alby recognized the changes of closing channel and reopening a channel. A relationship between LND.
I’ve not used private channels myself, but yes in theory it should work the same as it did with the public channel.
Gotcha. I guess I’ll find out. As I was reading your response I thought about the Boltz12 for OCEAN. As long as there is an open channel it doesn’t need to be the original one I had when I created the offer. Right?
Yes, that’s correct.
You da man sir. Thanks
Um. Might have broke the payout with a private channel? I suppose I can add PaulscodeLND as a public channel via Core Lightning eh? Is it a conflict to have private and public channels mixed on the Core?
No issues with having both. The private channels are simply not published (so only the two connected nodes know about them). Now that I think about it, it would make sense that having only the private channel would cause the payouts to fail, since it is the sender who generates the route (and Ocean doesn’t know about your private channel). I don’t know how Offers work exactly, but they probably follow the same pattern.
What is your LND costs to connect? 60000 sats be ok or 25000?
And…I should have left the channel I opened between LND and Core Lightning public then?
Ok…I tried this but doesn’t work as described but does appear it would work in reverse like so…
Check/verify
I didn’t execute yet…
I never know what is the correct direction (the terminology is ambiguous). My understanding is you take the channel which has the outbound liquidity that you want to move, and select Circular Rebalance on that one, and then for Receive From Peer you select another channel where you want to move the outbound liquidity to. In my explanation, the scenario was that Fletcher opened the channel to you. Perhaps it is different because you were the one who opened the channel?
Well…no harm in trying I guess. It’s not like the sats just go poof!
This a snippet of my channels…could it be that private thing again?
I think if you are doing the transaction, then you can use your own private channels (if someone else where doing the transaction, they could not since they don’t know about them). Did the one you had fail? That one (if I’m correct) should send sats out through the channel with Bcjeci_lnd and back in through the channel with ACINQ. The result would be that the Bcjeci_lnd channel would have more Inbound liquidity opened up, and ACINQ would have less.
Yep…
Not sure TBH. I suppose there could be not enough liquidity somewhere in between to handle 50,000 sats (though that seems unlikely since it is such a small amount).
