You need a million sats, to send 100 sats.
Discussion
Lightning, amirite 😂
So... what you are all telling me... is that self-custody lightning is sometimes basically impossible to use? And that on-chain transactions are faster, but they're so expensive that they hardly ever make sense?
😭
Not exactly. I’m saying that self-custodial ln is not for the faint of heart. Many (or all) get burned at some point. Custodial for 50$ worth of zaps is fine.
On-chain is quite affordable these days 
What does that mean in actual fees? 😅 This is all like Greek to me.
Less than 5 sats/vb is dirt cheap. If your utxos are properly consolidated you won’t pay much to send one (utxo)
It’s basically the size of your transaction in vb x fee rate. How I understand it is that the less inputs and outputs there are, the smaller the size will be. Less utxos in a transactions makes it less expensive.
A smaller fee rate, obviously makes it less expensive as well (<5 sats/vb in this case)
Depending on which transaction coordinator you use, you can see the size of the transaction and an estimated fee before sending
A Lightning payment service that uses ecash/mints in the backend for clearing and balances. More scalable than Lightning channels. That's what I built, am building.
Then we could run a GitCitadel mint and transfer sats in and out of the LN node over our Minibits wallets?
LN node becomes the backend for your mint. Need another component to be the user account.
That's what the Minibits is for, right? Or is there another ANOTHER component?
I was thinking that Minibits is a debit card,
and the mint is a checking account,
and the LN node is the savings account,
and the Bitcoin wallet is the gold vault.
And it would be n:1 for each level. So, n Minibits wallets for each mint, n mints for each LN node. I guess LN-BTC is n:n.
Figure it's worth a shot. 😅
Invoice for one nostr:npub1s3ht77dq4zqnya8vjun5jp3p44pr794ru36d0ltxu65chljw8xjqd975wz LN channel.
Send halp. Stuck in LN transaction hell.
