Avatar
KP 🧡⚡️
b2e777c827e20215e905ab90b6d81d5b84be5bf66c944ce34943540b462ea362
🧡⚡️
Replying to Avatar Hampus

Is it Lightning's time to shine now when the onchain transaction fee is so high?

Well yes, partly.

But please understand that Lightning ceases to work if the fees are too high!

To understand why, let’s go back to the saying that “Lightning is just Bitcoin transactions”.

Yes, this is true. Lightning in the end relies on normal Bitcoin transactions.

So by knowing this, you should have already realized why Lightning under a high onchain fee market is fragile, but let me explain:

The primary problem I’m referring to is the economical viability to sweep HTLCs.

An HTLC is the thing that gets added as an output to your lightning commitment transaction when you are doing Lightning payment.

It gets cleared out by making a new commitment transaction once the payment has goes through.

But the problem here is that if the onchain transaction fee is $100 and the cost of the sweeping an HTLC output is $100, then that means it’s not actually economically possible to redeem these funds.

Under normal circumstances you would never have to force-close and redeem this onchain, but it _can_ happen.

How LN circumvents this problem is by giving the payment amount to miners instead as a substitute for a real HTLC output. Giving the sats to miners means no more bytes are added to the commitment transaction, but it also means that if a force-close happens, these sats will just be given to miners instead.

This was already the case for all smaller payments (21 sats and so on) including virtually _all_ zaps here on nostr.

But for smaller micro-transactions it’s not a big deal if a payments gets lost, because no one would cry over 21 sats.

But if it’s about 210 000 sats, then we’re in a BIG problem if this isn’t secure and trustless.

We need to find a sweet spot for onchain transaction fees and we need more scaling solutions that work together with LN in order to fix this.

My favorite solution is a Lightning Network deployed over multiple Drivechains, fully interoperable, but I’m open for more suggestions. What do you think?

I prefer we solve this with bitcoin + LN

Introducing new chains is problematic.

With high fees now - some of the feature limitations of LN is getting exposed (good thing).

E.g. why all Force Close has to be so at high fees immediate resolution. Channel openers could mutually decide how much risk they are willing to take.

Replying to Avatar KP 🧡⚡️

and this @nostr:npub1v0lxxxxutpvrelsksy8cdhgfux9l6a42hsj2qzquu2zk7vc9qnkszrqj49

why this error now...I have been using the relay for a while.

"relay_response="wss://relay.snort.social/: OK: id=7ef91876ce431736c5c8608295b2682188657f5d257a17ba7ff7e75296ce3a4d ok=false message=\"blocked: no active subscription\""

#[1]

and this @nostr:npub1v0lxxxxutpvrelsksy8cdhgfux9l6a42hsj2qzquu2zk7vc9qnkszrqj49

why this error now...I have been using the relay for a while.

"relay_response="wss://relay.snort.social/: OK: id=7ef91876ce431736c5c8608295b2682188657f5d257a17ba7ff7e75296ce3a4d ok=false message=\"blocked: no active subscription\""

Who is running the bitblockboom relay. I paid the dues yesterday and getting this error today.

"relay_response="wss://relay.bitblockboom.com/: OK: id=5ca060e20a85154b9e23518b296724db2bc8483cdd572e5793ac46a4322ce4df ok=false message=\"blocked: insufficient balance\""

Well. I think Satoshi underestimated the grgabe that will be dumped in the future in the name of "art" - contributing to the high fees. Transactions take days (not few extra cycles) now for say opening a Lightning channel. 😂😂

@nostr:nevent1qqsfyvvq5ekteymkezaww6dhm83ranjcjfkdz4styas95tspafy6q9gpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctc6k6ktx

Or they post too frequently so I may mute them but go to their timelines to see if there are anything interesting I missed.

Getting off #onlyzap

Phase-2 if the experiment.

I think I am missing some new folks who interact via likes that I may find interesting to interact back with.