Zap me 21 sats with zero fee.
bc1qjtgh7dsta6824r84pzgwg6zjxvfqgam44tcntg
Discussion
Exactly my point.
On chain is the way to go.
If the fee environment ever got so bad you couldn’t make a transaction on the main chain you wouldn’t bother opening up a lightning channel.
I’m still waiting for my on-chain zap. Going to sleep now, I’ll check for it when I wake up and see if it ever confirms.
https://mempool.space/address/bc1qjtgh7dsta6824r84pzgwg6zjxvfqgam44tcntg
Keep avoiding my question.
And by the way with xmr you can send as much as you want for the price of a zap (practically)
Send some and find out
8A8rKP1bDtvC7HYhedPidPHxJU6tfWtM9EPPzhMntia858UmHh4FnfmRLnokbcddEdiSgWWveftcyQAJttTGhWBkAyjB4Dv
I’ll be waiting….
This isnt a reasonable comparison, one processes and stores far more value than the other. If monero had the userbase bitcoin did, with your dynamic block sizes, running a full node would be difficult and a centralizing force.
Also:
+non interactive
+no hot wallet necesary
+no routing problems to deal with
+can send any arbitrarily large amount without failing
+don't have to make sure you have enough capacity to recieve a payment
+truly private
All this while remaining completely non custodial, p2p, and permissionless
You would, because lightning channels allow you to connect with almost anyone on the market, send and receive with low fees. Of course lightning itself wont scale to billions of people in its current state either, its like the double entry ledger to the physical movement of gold (on chain transactions).
Lightning in practice is not p2p. Due to it's nature it consolidates into massive nodes people must route thru if you want the cheapest fees and transactions that don't fail.
LN limits the value you can transfer.
Arguably not final settlement (Nothing is until on chain)
You can be force closed making you pay on chain fees anyway.
npub169n9eaf0t20j0nefwqlqtnqcpsym22k2nw6e3tevtrrru4et7wrsh5w47v
And ~96% of users are on custodial wallets because of its terrible sovereign UX.
Many other problems besides these...all of these sacrfices to be able to scale and it still can't scale. What a bad trade.
Its a layer, it has different persumptions and provides different features. It is a final settlement, given the assumptions of lightning the bitcoin in the channel is owned by whoever has it in their balance, theres no need for a layer 1 transaction to take custody of it because its not in your counterparties vault, its in a channel with an enforceable claim; layer 1 transactions will be relegated to shifting liquidity, not final settlement. Maybe that doesnt provide the space for 8 billion lightning nodes, which most people are never going to run anyways, but it does provide room for millions/tens of millions of lightning nodes. I know you want a perfect digital bearer asset that can be sent like a text message without counterparty risk or scaling issues, with perfect security and privacy, that is absolutely scarce like bitcoin with google level UI, and I know you want it yesterday, but 1. Monero provide that either and never will, and 2. this is a problem thats plagued humanity for millenia and we are going about as fast as we can, so strap in.
As long as you have an active node and channel state backups or trust another person to do it. The potential to be rugged by your peers or channel host is always there after you make a transaction. This caveat doesn't exist for L1. Once the transaction is sufficiently confirmed you can't be rugged. It is final. Maybe there is a different term for it.
Worse, in practice, most lightning users don't even use it this way. They use it custodially.
I'm willing to entertain trade offs. But we're throwing away major value props of Bitcoin for scalability. The few things that differentiate it from fiat.
Defeats the whole purpose.
Once funds are received by lightning they cant be rugged unless you are using a custodial wallet or your node is disconnected for an extended period, which even then can be mitigated by watchtowers keeping an eye on your peer issuing an old channel state. Different terms for things, yea, I think the way a lot of this is playing out pushes our understanding of how money works to ite limits, I really dont think layer 1 should be considered settlement, it works today for those purposes but everyone using bitcoin today could be using lightning self custodied today as well, as it scales into the future I think l1 will be unusable for anything but moving liquidity and we will call lightning transactions as settlements.
note18t6hguahqekus8nmhz6gpft67244gnfql9k2uddj90es7p74km8salcv5z
1. Then it wont be a problem, but its unlikely fiats will be favored by the masses over time judging by their trajectory.
2. Yes, that would be the conclusion of praxeological economics when studying money by hardness through history, when cultures collide the one with the harder money is able to outproduce the weaker money and trade it away in exchange for all the goods of the culture with the weaker money.
3 and 4 are somewhat condradictory on the axis of arbitrariness. I am not inherently against a different model for block sizes, but that should take effect after we have layer 1 perfected, and determining a block size that supports transaction fees without overly constroctong activity seems like a tough question.