Intelligence Report
Lightning Node Intelligence Report
Northstar Demo Node · Illustrative observation window
Executive Summary
Northstar Demo Node presents a stable public graph profile with a moderate channel footprint and consistent recent visibility. This illustrative report combines Routing Intelligence, Channel Reachability Intelligence, customer-supplied CLBOSS correlation, Candidate Intelligence, Operational Intelligence and point-in-time BHS connection and channel-opening evidence.
The sample observations suggest that peer selection should consider repeated routing relevance, channel-size compatibility and current reachability together. These signals support operator review; they do not guarantee future routing, liquidity or revenue outcomes.
Public Node Profile
| Node | Northstar Demo Node |
|---|---|
| Network presence | Tor and clearnet advertised |
| Public channels | 14 illustrative channels |
| Public capacity | 42,600,000 sats |
| Median channel size | 3,000,000 sats |
| Observation freshness | Public graph record observed within the sample window |
Historical Public Signals
The fictional observation series shows a broadly stable channel count with gradual public-capacity growth. Fee posture remained within a consistent range while graph visibility was maintained throughout the illustrative period.
| Period | Channels | Capacity | Median fee rate | Public signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | 12 | 35.2M sats | 310 ppm | Stable |
| Week 2 | 13 | 39.4M sats | 295 ppm | Capacity increased |
| Week 3 | 14 | 42.6M sats | 300 ppm | Stable growth |
Routing Intelligence Summary
Illustrative route analysis produced 86 successful observations across nine tested payment levels, ranging from 1,000 to 500,000 sats. Seven candidate peers appeared repeatedly, with concentration strongest among the top three candidates. None of these observations proves available private liquidity or future forwarding performance.
Channel Reachability Intelligence
Assessment evidence: 86 successful route constructions across nine illustrative payment levels
Reachability Analytics — How to Read the Results
BlueHorseShoe tests each existing public channel from several routing perspectives to show both whether the channel itself can be traversed and whether it can participate in wider public routes to and from your node.
- Direct Customer → Peer
- Can a public route cross this specific channel from your node to the connected peer?
- Direct Peer → Customer
- Can a public route cross this specific channel from the peer back to your node?
- Outbound From Your Node
- Can this channel act as the first step in routes from your node onward to the tested destinations?
- Inbound To Your Node
- Can this channel act as the final step in routes from the tested destinations back to your node?
- Route Constructions
- How many eligible route tests successfully produced a public route. 17/20 (85%) means 17 of 20 eligible route-construction tests succeeded.
- Destination Coverage
- How many eligible destination nodes were successfully reached. 17/20 (85%) means routes were found to 17 of the 20 eligible destinations tested.
- Maximum Observed
- The largest tested payment amount for which at least one eligible public route was successfully constructed. It is not a measurement of channel liquidity or a guarantee that a real payment of that size will succeed.
Result statuses: Routes observed means public routes were constructed for the tested payment sizes and destinations. Mixed results means routes were found for some tests but not consistently across every tested size, destination or direction. No routes observed means no public route was constructed during these tests. Insufficient evidence means the available public graph evidence was not sufficient to assess the channel reliably. BlueHorseShoe cannot determine the private cause from public graph evidence alone.
Per-channel direction results and maximum observed amounts
| Existing channel | Outbound from your node | Inbound to your node | Observed range | Public evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peer Meridian 3.0M sat public capacity | Routes observed | Routes observed | 1K-500K sats | Routes constructed consistently across the illustrative test set. |
| Peer Harbour 2.0M sat public capacity | Routes observed | Mixed results | 1K-200K sats | Some inbound tests did not produce a public route at larger amounts. |
| Peer Summit 1.5M sat public capacity | Mixed results | Mixed results | 1K-100K sats | Weaker than Routes observed; the channel may warrant closer review. |
| Peer Lantern 900K sat public capacity | Insufficient evidence | Insufficient evidence | Not established | Public graph evidence was not sufficient for a reliable assessment. |
CLBOSS Recommendation Comparison
The fictional operator supplied a CLBOSS channel_candidates file with eight recommendations. BlueHorseShoe compared every supplied public key with the complete illustrative routing evidence for this same analysis. Three recommendations were also observed by BHS, giving illustrative coverage of 37.5%.
| CLBOSS candidate | BHS observation | Route appearances | BHS public score | Public relationship |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate Alpha | Strongly observed | 24 | 78 / 100 | No public channel observed |
| Candidate Charlie | Observed | 15 | 72 / 100 | Existing public path context |
| Candidate Foxtrot | Observed | 7 | 64 / 100 | No public channel observed |
| Five other supplied candidates | Not observed | 0 | Varied | Public relationship varied |
A CLBOSS/BHS match means the same public key appeared in BlueHorseShoe routing evidence for this analysis. It is correlation evidence, not an endorsement, guarantee or instruction to open a channel.
Candidate Peer Observations
| Candidate | Routing observations | Amounts observed | Public relationship | Validation evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate Alpha | 24 | 5K–500K sats | No public channel observed | Observed Reachable at test time; 25K sat probe rejected with an illustrative 1M sat minimum indication. |
| Candidate Bravo | 18 | 1K–200K sats | No public channel observed | No recent result Recommendation relies on graph and routing evidence. |
| Candidate Charlie | 15 | 10K–500K sats | Existing public path context | Observed Peer address was reachable during the illustrative validation window. |
Candidate Alpha
Candidate Alpha appeared most frequently and across the widest illustrative payment range. BHS connection and channel-opening checks add a point-in-time observation that the peer was reachable and exposed a larger channel opening threshold than the probe amount. An operator would still need to assess capital allocation, existing connectivity and channel intent before acting.
Candidate Bravo
Candidate Bravo showed repeated smaller-payment relevance. BHS has not recently checked its connection availability or channel-opening requirements, so the observation remains based on public graph and route-analysis intelligence rather than a direct peer test.
Operational Findings
Operational Intelligence converts the supplied evidence into a bounded set of findings for operator review. These findings explain what may warrant attention without instructing the operator to open, close, rebalance or change a channel.
| Finding | Materiality | Evidence strength | Review priority | Evidence boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mixed public reachability observed on existing channels Routes were constructed for some tests but not consistently across all assessed amounts, targets or directions. | High | Strong | Review | Public evidence cannot determine whether the private cause was liquidity, fees, channel settings or the wider route. |
| Low correlation between CLBOSS and BHS evidence Three of eight supplied CLBOSS candidates appeared in the illustrative BHS routing evidence. | Medium | Strong | Review | Divergence does not establish that either method is incorrect. |
| Strong routing evidence has a recent-check gap Candidate Bravo appeared repeatedly, but no recent BHS connection or channel-opening check was available. | Medium | Limited | Validate | A recent-check gap does not prove permanent unavailability. |
Operational Considerations
- Routes worked through some existing channels in some tests but not others. Public data cannot show whether the cause was liquidity, fees, channel settings, or the wider route.
- Only some CLBOSS candidates also appeared in BHS routing analysis. This difference does not mean either method is wrong; it identifies candidates whose supporting evidence may deserve comparison.
- These candidates appeared often in BHS routing analysis, but BHS has not recently checked their connection availability or channel-opening requirements.
Report Traceability
| Report version | Sample Report 1.1 |
|---|---|
| Renderer version | node-report-renderer-v2 |
| Operational Intelligence rules | OPERATIONAL_INTELLIGENCE_V1_1 |
| Reachability method | CHANNEL_REACHABILITY_V2 |
| Evidence status | Illustrative sample evidence |
Methodology And Limitations
BlueHorseShoe reports use publicly available Lightning Network graph data supplemented by BlueHorseShoe routing observations, public route-construction evidence, customer-supplied CLBOSS correlation, Operational Intelligence findings and customer-safe BHS connection and channel-opening evidence where available. Reports do not inspect private channels, private liquidity, wallet balances, credentials or private forwarding records. Reachability and BHS checks are point-in-time observations and do not guarantee channel acceptance, routing success, payment reliability, forwarding volume or fee revenue. This sample contains fictional labels and illustrative values and is not financial advice.
Want a report for your own node?
Your personalised report includes:
- Live public graph analysis
- Routing Intelligence
- Channel Reachability Intelligence
- Optional CLBOSS Recommendation Comparison
- BHS connection and channel-opening observations
- Operational Intelligence findings
- Candidate peer recommendations
- Professional PDF report
Generate your Lightning invoice and receive your own analysis.
Request Your Report