Yeah Lightning is so good only 0.03% of the entire BTC network uses it.
Fuck off with these strawmen arguments about L1 being "too expensive".
nostr:note1ux7eleagm6a605cfpj2n0x54l3qewpek860mhj423laucllmf0asksetca
Are questions to be answered, before you just jump in for any "announcement":
1. Did somebody already reviewed that code? Or we have another case like ANOM? https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/146/
2. Are people still use onchain for payments ? Seriously? In 2024?!
Reminder:
- onchain is the final settlement, only for long term holding
- LN is The Payment Network of Bitcoin that could offer waaaay more options for privacy. If you still didn't find them, it means you don't know too much about LN.
Living in the past (prer-LN era) will cost you a fortune if you are stuck in not adapting.
Discussion
yeah, it's far from too expensive but at the same time as you probably know lightning payments use a source-onion-routed protocol and only timing info is visible to intermediate LN nodes, and many ecom operators are running tehir own LN infra like btcpayserver, i was using a VPS with this some time back, and have used several others as well, so it really is confidential between customer and vendor
when you say 0.03% is that by volume (sum of the sats value) or by individual transactions, because individual transactions are where the onchain fees come from, not the volume (leaving aside the cost of transactions with large number of component UTXOs)
if it's by volume then darthcoin the lightning maniac is right about that because he means transaction count
i dunno about any stats on the actual utilization of LN in terms of volume, i've got some beefs with the entire protocol over the matter of channel balance being opaque and this being the main cause of routing failures (especially combined with shitty routing nodes running on flaky ADSL connections in the middle of Australia and shit
The meme's about privacy potential using LN versus a L1 service
And regarding cost, you're saying that when it's only 2 sats/vbyte