Quote from: nc50lc on Today at 11:28:16 AM

Quote from: Josson on Today at 09:43:28 AM

As evidenced by this screenshot:
https://i.postimg.cc/vHTvjh3n/swaps.jpg

the two Forward swaps had gone through perfectly well, and it's only some time later that someone, somehow, in the name of what? was able to initiate the Swap refunds. The second "refund", initiated shortly before I wrote this post, only went through in the night.

In your screenshot, only one Forward swap had gone through perfectly: the "dimmed" one.
The other two (with no BTC amount after "Forward swap" in the description) have failed must be because Boltz failed to send you the lightning funds, that's why they had to send you a refund.
May be at their end or their/your channel's connection issue.

In your screenshot: Lets, label each line as tx1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7:

tx1 is the refund of tx5
tx6 is the refund of tx7
tx4 is the successful forward swap.

Thank you, that makes sense. I hadn't realised that the amount showing in the description meant anything in particular. Looking back in time I find that out of good number of Forward swaps there's only one without the amount, about a month ago. But as far as I can see it didn't cause any hassles. I should also think that during the 28 hours that lapsed between tx6 and tx7 I would have had plenty of time to use the funds as I did in tx2 and tx3.

Concerning connection issues, I can't see that it should have been the case at my end (unless... shutting down the computer? - I had understood that this could be a problem if I had my own node, which is not the case). If it's at Boltz's end that the problem lies, the fact is that Electrum doesn't give us another option.

If Boltz fails, as you wrote, to send amounts that are not very substantial, could it be a question of fees? On-chain, in 99 out of 100 transactions, I put the lowest fee, for the simple reason that I'm never in a hurry, but that's maybe not the right thing to do in LN?

P.S. I hope this reply gets accepted - my previous reply got me a warning from a moderator which I wasn't able to understand for lack of familiarit with the terminology.

Quote from: Abdussamad on Today at 01:39:56 PM

Connecting to just one server reduces your security somewhat. I would be cautious about doing this.

Thank you. I hadn't been on this forum for the past couple of years, but I remember that in the past you had given me some very valuable information. It was the LN instructor I mentioned that suggested to use only one node and recommended a couple of them in particular. His point was that that some nodes in the crowd might be a bit dodgy, and that using one node only is slightly better in terms of anonimity. I guess I'll follow your advice, but I'd like to hear your comments, if any, on his take.

P.S. I hope this post gets accepted - my previous reply got me a warning from a moderator which I wasn't able to understand for lack of familiarity with the terminology.