Why a free option problem? Offers could have an expiration timestamp
Do you know why Boltz has minimums? That's annoying
Discussion
i guess depends on the design.
it is an annoying problem, i've tried now to figure out a simple way but you're right, everything works against you for small amounts
Why not charge more instead of not even allowing smaller amounts? Sounds dumb to me but what do I know. Last time I checked minimum was 25000 sats
As a user swapping small amounts is a pain in the ass currently. Fixedfloat finally worked but minumum is 10 USD.
And Aqua is a larp, they're marketing to the "global south" yet minimum to send is 70 USD
> Offers could have an expiration timestamp
Easier said than done. Ultimately it boils down to that you can't enforce super short timeouts on Lightning thus it needs some external reputation or punishment system to avoid exploitation of the Free Option. Nothing of the sort was ever implemented afaik, hence still unsolved. More: https://blog.boltz.exchange/p/the-problem-with-free-options-69f9f59a2d48
> Do you know why Boltz has minimums? That's annoying
Because spending tiny UTXOs is not economical in many cases. Due to an upcoming major network upgrade on Liquid things will change though and we'll be able to lower limits for Liquid soon.
Thank you for this.
Re: minimums. Spending tiny UTXOs is not economical to whom? I sometimes want to spend them (or receive them) regardless and I wish I could pay more -much more- for that to happen
For us, for Boltz. If you are swapping 100 sats from e.g. Liquid to Lightning, Boltz receives a 100 sat UTXO.
Charge way more to compensate for that risk?
But you still enforce a minimum when you receive Lightning and pay onchain
> Charge way more to compensate for that risk?
It had to be that much that nobody would use it. You are barking up the wrong tree here.
> But you still enforce a minimum when you receive Lightning and pay onchain
Because of refunds, but again we are changing minima soon.