⚡️ DailyZap: Banco Santander Talks Lightning
Santander, Spain's largest bank, published a blog post about Lightning, describing how it helps enhance Bitcoin scalability by enabling users to perform cheap transactions with instant settlement. Funnily enough, while the beginning of the piece deals with "the Lightning Network", the tone switches in the end and addresses liquidity issues in Lightning Networks. I don't know if it's just regular vagueness, accounting for 💩coins Lightning networks (such as Litecoin or Decred), or testimony that whoever wrote this piece understands that there is no such thing as the Lightning Network.
Indeed, as John Carvalho highlighted back in 2019, there is no global consensus on Lightning, but merely a common protocol which implementations are convergent enough to enable interoperability. But various implementations are free to prioritize some features over others, even developing things they are the only one to support. That's completely allowed and expected by the Lightning protocol, which is why nodes are able to set and advertize per-channel and or per-node features. For now the set of features is quite convergent, but we're already seeing differences in feature prioritization across implementations, and I expect this to be even more the case in the future. And that's ok: there can totally be different subsets of "the" Lightning Network, tailored for different use cases or to maximize different outcomes. Two subsets may or may not be able to communicate through nodes that are compatible with both flavors of the protocol -- but I expect they will.
A bit more concerning is the perspective described by Odell back in March that the real split between Lightning subnetworks might be the one separating KYC-abiding nodes and channels from the rest. That's a daunting vision, presumably the one that banks such as Santander will need to embrace if they're to jump on the Lightning bandwagon. So having a bank write about the greatness of the Lightning Network(s) is cool, but cheer with caution my friends.
Blog post: https://www.santander.com/en/stories/lightning-network-blockchain
https://nostrcheck.me/media/public/nostrcheck.me_3345129344500099641688665696.webp
Time will tell.
⚡️ DailyZap: Banco Santander Talks Lightning
Santander, Spain's largest bank, published a blog post about Lightning, describing how it helps enhance Bitcoin scalability by enabling users to perform cheap transactions with instant settlement. Funnily enough, while the beginning of the piece deals with "the Lightning Network", the tone switches in the end and addresses liquidity issues in Lightning Networks. I don't know if it's just regular vagueness, accounting for 💩coins Lightning networks (such as Litecoin or Decred), or testimony that whoever wrote this piece understands that there is no such thing as the Lightning Network.
Indeed, as John Carvalho highlighted back in 2019, there is no global consensus on Lightning, but merely a common protocol which implementations are convergent enough to enable interoperability. But various implementations are free to prioritize some features over others, even developing things they are the only one to support. That's completely allowed and expected by the Lightning protocol, which is why nodes are able to set and advertize per-channel and or per-node features. For now the set of features is quite convergent, but we're already seeing differences in feature prioritization across implementations, and I expect this to be even more the case in the future. And that's ok: there can totally be different subsets of "the" Lightning Network, tailored for different use cases or to maximize different outcomes. Two subsets may or may not be able to communicate through nodes that are compatible with both flavors of the protocol -- but I expect they will.
A bit more concerning is the perspective described by Odell back in March that the real split between Lightning subnetworks might be the one separating KYC-abiding nodes and channels from the rest. That's a daunting vision, presumably the one that banks such as Santander will need to embrace if they're to jump on the Lightning bandwagon. So having a bank write about the greatness of the Lightning Network(s) is cool, but cheer with caution my friends.
Blog post: https://www.santander.com/en/stories/lightning-network-blockchain
https://nostrcheck.me/media/public/nostrcheck.me_3345129344500099641688665696.webp
🙋 "Stop limit order on LNM! Cool! But what is it ser?"
It's a limit order that can be triggered when the Futures prices:
👎 goes down to a given price (the limit price) for Long orders
👍 goes up to a given price (the limit price) for Short orders
Ex1: setting a long limit order if #Bitcoin goes down to $25k
Ex2: setting a short limit order if #Bitcoin goes up to $40k
Any question? reach out to us on Telegram, Discord, Nostr or in the Trollbox 🤗https://nostrcheck.me/media/public/nostrcheck.me_9380477513274290461688657735.webp https://nostrcheck.me/media/public/nostrcheck.me_1392793947802186991688657744.webp
📣 New release on lnmarkets.com
🔥 Higher trading limits: 1 BTC margin used per account, 10 million sats max per trade
✅ Single price reference for options
📊 New order type: stop limit order
☂️ LNM Umbrel app minimalist update
Any question? reach out to us on Telegram, Discord or in the Trollbox 🤗
https://nostrcheck.me/media/public/nostrcheck.me_2332026390169671191688589866.webp
📣 New release on lnmarkets.com
🔥 Higher trading limits: 1 BTC margin used per account, 10 million sats max per trade
✅ Single price reference for options
📊 New order type: stop limit order
☂️ LNM Umbrel app minimalist update
Any question? reach out to us on Telegram, Discord or in the Trollbox 🤗
https://nostrcheck.me/media/public/nostrcheck.me_2332026390169671191688589866.webp
In BTC terms, June is our second best month with BTC 1,750 monthly trading volume ⚡
LN Markets hits an all-time high of $50 million monthly trading volume in June ⚡
Thanks fam 🙏
Latest Strikes #33 is out! Read along to discover what happened in the Lightning world last week! What did you catch? What did you miss? 👀
🥖 Fresh from the oven: Latest Strikes 28 reviews last week's developments in the Lightning world, including:
- Core Lightning's Descriptiongate drama,
- Taro legal issues,
- an off-chain channel resizing proposal,
- and more!
Check it out 👇
Twitter down
Bitcoin & Nostr are never down
🔥 looks like we're serious about this new monthly trading volume ATH on lnmarkets.com
thank you all frens 🧡
(+ nice decorrelation with BTCUSD price ✌️)
Thx sensei!
This attack doesn't steal funds per se, but degrades the expected "quality of service" (in terms of quick confirmation, for example), and can indirectly result in loss of funds in the case of time-sensitive protocols. Definitely something to keep in mind!
This also made me think of an active discussion in the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list regarding an attack vector on multiparty protocols (such as Lightning or coinjoins, and even more opening Lightning channels in coinjoins) using Taproot inputs,
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021444.html
[...]
where the last party to sign can spend using a very big script path instead of the agreed upon key path, thus inflating the whole transaction's size and diminishing the overall feerate, as the absolute fee (in sats) was already committed to.
This also made me think of an active discussion in the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list regarding an attack vector on multiparty protocols (such as Lightning or coinjoins, and even more opening Lightning channels in coinjoins) using Taproot inputs,
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021444.html