The blockchain data platform Chainalysis has announced that it is adding support for the Lightning Network (LN), along with other major networks including Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum. This comes after they were awarded a contract from law enforcement agencies to track criminals on dark web
Then why are their reserves collapsing, their BTC margins disappearing, the sales of hard wallets outstripping supply, LN apps growing parabolically, and Coinbase competitors popping up every other month? There are many options beyond Coinbase and with something like covenants/vaults (op\_checktemplateverify), lost coins will become a very rare thing in the future.
Honestly, what are you talking about? Ever since miners stopped spamming the network in an attempt to inflate the fee market artificially for ulterior motives, on-chain Bitcoin transactions have been absurdly cheap. It has also helped that several Bitcoin exchanges have finally updated their infrastructure to include transaction batching and optimized Segwit transactions. Typically anywhere from 5 cents to 20 cents over the past year or two, depending on how patient you are. On top of that, Bitcoin has the Lightning Network which continues to grow drastically in capacity and reach. LN transactions are effectively free and instant, costing roughly 5/100ths of 1 cent per transaction.
If we're talking about mass adoption, we're using second layer solutions like Liquid or Lightning. Nobody can check the LN and see your balance. r/LightningNetwork is awesome and really easy to use even for newcomers. If you never tried it, install [Muun](https://muun.com/) or/and [Phoenix](https://phoenix.acinq.co/) wallet and play with them a bit. Some exchanges including [CoinCorner](https://coincorner.com/) are already using LN, many promised to implement it ASAP. Don't forget the adoption in El Salvador, running almost exclusively on LN.
> Imagine a world where most of our wealth is held in BTC. In such a world, most of your transactions are in 2nd and 3rd layer. Just like you are not using the Federal Reserves, ECB's etc. transaction protocols, but rather SWIFT, ACH, SEPA, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, ... you'll mostly use LN, Liquid, e-Cash, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, ... in a bitcoinized world. The level of privacy in regards to other private citizens and the government is simply a function of which payment protocol you'll be using. PayPal might be very private to other private citizens but transparent to the government. e-Cash would be very private for everyone, for example.
Nonsense. You can have as many addresses as you'd like under the same private keys. And you could use coinjoins, or just the LN. The only way they'd ever know is if perpetually reused the same address or you shared the wallet's xPub with them
I wont have any problem if average fee hikes. And after adoption of LN, there would already be less transactions on chain. But what I think is that the affordability of minimum fee on chain should stay the same over years. If a minimum relay fee is roughly around 7 cents today, it should be there in the future too, by adjusting the min sat per byte and optimismg transaction size (as the developers are doing). It’s not about cheap transactions to do on LN, it’s about the affordability that should be maintained in my opinion. It wont harm anyone if they do a min fee of 1/4 sats per byte in future if value of Bitcoin rises to over 10x of what it is today.
Have you actually paid any attention how on El-Salvador uses Bitcoin. The Chivo wallet uses own custom backend, it does not use LN. Chivo wallet can kinda interoperate with LN, but the experience is kinda hit or miss. https://bitcoinist.com/from-the-ground-chivo-wallet-and-the-chivo-atm/amp/ There are no actual large scale use of LN anywhere.
When I wrote, I was thinking about the energy spent metrics between fiat money and BTC+LN. Something like an index, which shows people around the world how BTC+LN can be more efficient than the global fiat system. Right now I'm thinking of some references that might be provocative for you: Fiat Market Cap: https://fiatmarketcap.com Cambridge BTC Energy Consumption Index: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ccaf.io/cbeci/&ved=2ahUKEwjI1vOshrf1AhUkrJUCHR0EDIwQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw01dDR6wR1zDhRaHuz--AC5 Coin Metrics Formula Builder: https://charts.coinmetrics.io/formulas/
I guess I should've been more specific. I didn't mean all custodial services will go bankrupt. I meant that with the LN and everything else, that hordes of options to get bitcoin (from various mobile apps to spot ETF's) will exist, and that CEX's will serve no purpose for bitcoin anymore, especially as the non-custodial options meet or exceed their centralized peers, and Apple and Samsung offer native support. This is all good though, because it means bitcoin is distributed broadly. It also means that CEX's will need shitcoinery to maintain its current trajectory if they want to remain profitable and in business--which I doubt
Point well taken with the title.. what I meant was 'my beef with the argument that BTC has a throughput problem'. Of course we have LN now and it will get better and more widely used as time goes by. But my point which most of the commenters here missed is that even the great minds at lightning labs and lightning network and eclair and .. who created the LN did not defend BTC by saying "hey, the Visa/MC's many thousands tx/sec and BTC's 7 tx/sec is just **flawed**". I can not count the many times that I have read or heard that comparison.
Bitcoin addresses use check sums to make sure you are sending to a valid address. However, its impossible to check whether a valid address is a correct address - the receiver could have given you simply a perfectly fine address where he does not own the private keys for ahd the coins become unspendable. Entry The Lightning Network. This is bitcoin's payment layer. Payments via lightning network work via an interactive protocol and this makes sure that the correct wallets exchanged exactly the correct amount and received money is instantly available on receiver side, no waiting for confirmations etc. Don't get me wrong: LN is not some magic technology which solves everything. It has its own drawbacks, but it makes payments very fast, secure, fool proof and instant.
>The transaction was by no means 'final' and it took many hours or days to become final. Granted it doesn't happen all the times but it does happen. What you're describing is not "final", and people need to be careful when using that term casually when talking about BTC and credit cards. BTC transactions are **final** once made, in the sense of the word that a 1st grader would understand - unchangeable. Credit card transactions are *approved*, but they are not final by any means at that point. You can challenge, as you point out, for an arbitrarily long period of time. But we shouldn't just look at transaction finality, because there's also the account tied to the transactions in both systems (BTC and banking) which, in banking's case, negates finality full stop. Even after the transaction is made, your account which is tied to the card can be seized or garnished (e.g. here in Japan it is legal to claw back money given in error without notice to or permission by you). This is an effective non-finality. What good is finality of a transaction if I can just go on the back end and move the numbers to another column anyway? ​ And while your title (beef with BTC throughput means "problem with BTC throughput") and post (which talked about how great BTC throughput is) are mismatched, just to clarify for others, it is not nor ever has been a problem that BTC "clears" transactions after 10 minutes. **Even if** VISA etc could be fully transparent and only take seconds, it's still not a problem for BTC because 1. LN exists 2. BTC L1 can be used to move larger amounts 3. Shop owners regularly take on a counterparty risk when dealing with payment processors in order to speed up the processing - getting e.g. automatic approval for purchases under $X. This has been a wide practice for decades. They would simply have the same damn thing with BTC if they chose to use L1.
>But some day bitcoin price will find saturation No it cant. Bitcoin is deflationary. Meaning we will have less and less avaliable over time, making it increase in price compared to everything else >generated coins will definitely not pay electricity bills. The mining reward is new coins + mining fees users pay as transaction fee. Seems like you dont know the difficulty adjustment. When hashrate drops the difficulty gets easier. So some miners leave and by that its getting profitable for the rest again. Until every Block gets mined in 10min again. >isnt it ok to say network will become vulnerable no. Never did the halving maked the hashrate go down. >however LN and other sidechains will continue to work They dont have own security. They are just as safe as the mainlayer is. They technically cant be safer. When there is no BTC on L1 backing funds on L2 up its worthless. >What i worry is we have seen hashrate going up we havent seen the other way round. Thats wrong we did see it go down very often. Just recently in summer when china banned mining again and most miners did move to another country.
If u hand you a dollar it is free and instant. With digital Fiat there are free ways that are "instant". I know exactly what I'm talking about. You didn't even know the active volume of nano and challenged me on it lol. Bitcoin is a money revolution that brings value and its energy use is what secures it. LN gives it scalabity and ease of use and only those moving btc on and off chain are the ones paying those fees, you theoretically never have to do that. Kinda like credit cards to Fiat, easy way to use. There's a reason why Bitcoin remains #1, you need learn why. In order for nano to be great it would need a massive marketcap to reach a stable price so people would want to use it, in order to reach a massive marketcap it would need to be stable in price. It's a circle. Send me a lightning network invoice and I'll send you some sats to play with to prove nano has no place. Otherwise enjoy your slide to the top 300.
bitcoin PoW will never go away. I can use WBTC on a network that doesn't have mining and I have played with a LN wallet before. it does not matter. those bitcoins that are wrapped up off the mainnet had to come from PoW and they have to be redeemable back to the bitcoin mainnet.
You can run a Bitcoin + Lightning Network node on a Raspi with 1TB HD(!). Instant transactions. You can even connect your smart phone with zap or zeus to send and receive on the go. This is why there are 50K+ plus Bitcoin nodes out there, with 20K+ running LN as well. And the numbers are increasing. Robust and decentralized as it was designed to be initially.
lol no its not! if you wanna do a nano tx you can see it on the blockchain. Try to find your LN tx on a blockchain... you can't... cuz LN isn't a blockchain, it's a fuckin L2 no different than venmo. Ln will never be at the same level as nano because nano is an actual crypto, LN is just a l2 on top of some other coin's blockchain.
If you care about using a cryptocurrency, which I and many others, after all that’s why were here, then nano wins out over LN. LN is not a cryptocurrency it’s just a l2 like Venmo. You can compare LN to Venmo, but you cannot compare LN to nano. Nano is a decentralized open source L1, so you can only compare nano to other decentralized open source L1’s
but if someone wants to make a payment on a decentralized crypto l1 they'll choose nano. LN tx's are not btc tx's, they're not even on chain. LN is more like venmo to the US dollar, it's a l2 that makes it easier to use, but it's still not the same as nano
Well that is if you are buying btc with fiat. And there is no way around that. You can send/recieve without kyc, but that would be true of any LN wallet. At least not in the USA. It's the cheapest, simple way to onramp from fiat to btc.
Random question since I'm still exploring Lightning: With all that talk about channels and liquidity, and I don't need to worry about all that when I fir example use Muun Wallet? As in, I can just send BTC to Muun and start sending with LN without any additional setup or cost?
If Kraken would actually release an update on where they are with the project that would be something, but instead it's the same old "watch this space" comments. Kraken came out and said to the world last year we're going to do LN integration by EoY 2021. Within that time frame an entire country has declared Bitcoin legal tender and implemented the LN nationwide, yet here we are with Kraken still talking about "watch this space". Hilarious.
There's a country that uses BTC as legal tender on LN. To be honest, that's as far from useless as I can think of. The security seems ok for country level usage, I'd hazard to guess it works for global usage as well. Whenever I hear people question LN's security I know they have no idea how LN works. It's literally a bunch of multisigs. LN is just using Bitcoin in a different way, it's not something different than Bitcoin. It has the same security. >Most TOP-20 cryptos collapse under normal use as soon as something that runs on them becomes popular. Like legal tender usage in a country? That's happening and we are under 10sat/vbyte right now. I honestly don't know how you can claim most top-20 coins are shit because they can't support usage, and then call the only one that can (i.e. Bitcoin) useless.
Yes, LN currently has a bitcoin capacity of 3342 BTC. LN's bitcoin capacity has been growing nicely as it only had a bitcoin capacity of 2294 BTC just 1 year ago. You only lock up BTC on LN that you intend to use for sending relatively small instant bitcoin payments. Much like a hot wallet. You don't store your wealth on LN. 3342 BTC is currently worth over $144,000,000. So 3342 BTC is more than enough BTC for the current amount of LN users to use for sending and receiving relatively small instant bitcoin payments.
This is all very interesting and valuable reading from an academic perspective. Here is another statistic https://bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity Total current capacity of LN is ~3311 BTC. How many alts have a greater market cap than that?
Has anyone looked into or used Zion? It’s a decentralized social media platform that claims to be built on Bitcoin & LN. just looked at their Instagram and it looks interesting but I donno. I’m not crazy about social media in general so I didn’t make an account or anything.
> Here is the Lightning Network white paper: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf I am very familiar with the Lightning Network white paper in particular with the following quote on page 55 > If all transactions using Bitcoin were conducted inside a network of micropayment channels, to enable 7 billion people to make two channels per year with unlimited transactions inside the channel, it would require 133 MB blocks (presuming 500 bytes per transaction and 52560 blocks per year). Current generation desktop computers will be able to run a full node with old blocks pruned out on 2TB of storage. So yes LN will add scaling to Bitcoin, but one still needs to increase capacity on level 1 for LN to really scale.
Yeah no This is just ridiculous misinformation You shouldn't expect to even spend more than 10 sats on a LN transaction unless it's a huge amount of BTC or you choose a real stinker to open a channel with. Occasionally I had wallet of satoshi take like 100 sats for no reason. Keep in mind my average fee over probably 1000 effortless transactions made from my LN node, the fee is around 1-2 sats If I send just 1 dollar. And get hit with a 2 satoshi fee, this is roughly $0.00086, as in. THE FEE ISNT EVEN ONE TENTH OF A PENNY This is less than .1% (in this case exactly 0.086% fee) The reality is if I send say 10$ the fee would essentially be the same (often exactly the same) This would take my fees down to 0.0086% At that rate it would cost you just over 8 dollars to send 100,000$
>Now if only CashApp would verify their users after three attempts, that would be something to brag about. Try registering on an iOS device, it does it on the first try; for some reason Android and CASH app's camera algo don't play nicely together. This is the only reason I bought an iphone, though I have both devices. I just checked on my android cash app I still don't have LN on 3.54.1 build
It looks like from the link you provided that the 'routing fees' charged by Zion are in fact charges for using LN on their social media platform. I guess they need to pay for the ad free social media network somehow but the routing is not a LN charge but a Zion Social Media Network fee raked off their LN payments. Whether or not this 'routing fee' is charged for payments from Zion to other wallets remains a question I would like answered. If is does Zion is not a great wallet.
Have you tried Electrum for larger LN payments? I suspect it may be lower cost than Muun although with Electrum you need to stake about 200,000 stats to use. For payments over $100 I would still use on chain BTC as more secure and BTC network is now anyway lower cost due to LN freeing up capacity:)
Firstly I think that having your own full node should be very important...if you're not deeply confident with the tech you can try to have a go with Umbrel. You need a Raspberri Pi4, an SSD, internet connection and basically you're done. It's a full node implementation that gives you a packed in Full node, Lightning node and a lot more applications like BTC payserver Btcpayserver is something taht can help you to receive payments over LN for your commercial activity
The post uses an example now revelaed to be Zion social network where paymewnts in the network incur a 2% routing fee- this appears to be Zion monetising its social network via LN. It is not clear what fees are paid via Zion wallet to other wallets outside Zion social network but if they are 2% they are hugely uncompetitive relative to alternatives like Electrum and Muun. Have not tried large payments via my Electrum LN wallet but imagine the fees would scale up for larger payments, so LN is best for smaller payments. Not sure what the fee for $50 over LN Electrum would be but guessing around 10sats max. Not expensive. As applied in El Salvador LN enables 25000 consumer level payments at a total cost of $5. Better value digital MoE than any other alternative IMO.
I don't believe a word of those reports. Something else is going on with the flags. Coinjoins are now part of commercial wallets. If coinjoins themselves are what caused the flags, this problem would be massive. I use them with every transaction (run my own node), am a client of many different CEX's, and have never had a problem. The good news is that with the LN and Taproot wallet designs, blockchain forensics firms are about to get one of their eyes gauged out, and a dark lens placed over the other. I also expect coinjoins to innovate as well. The future of privacy looks robust.
Ok Thanks I see that now though it did not come up on search at first. If they take 2% routing fee based on the LN payment amount then that seems exorbitant so use another LN wallet. Interested to hear from any actual Zion users to see if they are really paying a 2% fee on all payments as that would make Zion hugely un-competitive with the alternatives which are far cheaper. Electrum charges or 2 sats per payment.
The article you reference is 2 years old and is using arbitrary figures to describe the network functioning but is not based on any real world case. Most LN payments will be 1-3 sats in the real world. If you find a real world case of higher fees please report back with it otherwise this post is misleading and unsubstantiated FUD.
Most likely in a mass adoption people would not manage their own BTC but keep it in a centralized institution. The same way people did not keep their own gold because they don't want the hassle/risk. So in a hyperbitcoinized world exchanges would defacto become the new FED and we have to trust them no to loan out more assets than they have. Since that is extremely lucrative I don't see them not doing it... Hopefully people will realize this and stick to LN but not sure if that is likely as the interfaces are nice and shiny on the exchanges\^\^
I was thinking more about the exchanges as layer 2 than lightning - seems like most newbies will run their transactions there rather than on LN no? This would give them the possibility of loaning your BTC out and "increasing" the supply of BTC or am I missing something?
Then please give specific example of whatever rip off wallet/node you are referring to. Detail exactly which wallet/node is charging such exorbitant fees as you have claimed, otherwise retract your baseless and unsubstantiated FUD. I use Electrum wallet with LN and pay 1 or 2 Sats max total fee, no more, on any transaction to any other LN wallet.
the equivalence existed before LN - even exchanges are Layer 2. So you can already send btc from Conbase to Conbase, which may not result into any actual L1 transaction. In fact, much similar to fiat, there doesn't even need to be any underlaying asset, it is just numbers on the screen. But centralized exchanges, even though technically being L2 aren't there as scaling solution. And LN is much more than just L2, it scales the properties of L1, namely finality and scarcity. LN transactions have final settlement in seconds. LN = BTC.
I kept some in third party custody earning interest but after like the ~fifth time in a row my withdrawal was "manually reviewed" I decided to lower my risk quite a bit and took custody of most of the coins. These days I like to let satoshi decide when my coins move 🙏 As u/Egge_ said, providing liquidity to LN or JM it's possible to earn some (possible) returns. But both require some capital to start. (and the wallets are hot, riskier) I think it's said that LN channels and JM UTXO's should be +1M sats (0.01 BTC) in size.
While a DAG improves on the speed of confirming transactions, it doesn't really improve the scalability of the network compared to a blockchain, because you still require global consensus. If you want to scale a system that requires global consensus it will always become more centralized (just look at SOL or BNB). In my opinion the way forward isn't DAG, but protocols like Lightning Network that operate on top of a blockchain, that explicitly don't require global consensus for every transaction and therefor don't have this bottleneck in the first place. I don't think most people realize what a fundamental breakthrough the LN is. Obviously I could be wrong, so I have some Nano as a hedge :-)
As adoption increases, layer 2's like lightning can do the vast majority of the donkey work and the layer 1(which uses the bulk of the energy) can continue doing the same on-chain transactions that it has been doing for years now. Roll on mass adoption, that should then give more credibility to the energy usage. At that point, LN et al will save power vs. the legacy banking system.
Thanks a lot for the tip! The BTC/sats denomination is coming. It should have been present from the start. Regarding LND vs c-lightning - I am not really LN expert and I don't have any strong opinions at this point. Multiple people already expressed interest in c-lightning so I need to give it a try.
S--curve adoptions all have their shakeout phase. I believe regulation (security designations and stablecoin oversight) will be the beginning of that, and there will never be an altcoin recovery because the LN is getting too real too quick, wallet friction is collapsing, and a robust yield curve is just beginning to form around bitcoin. Bitcoin is going to $500k in the next 12-15 months.
Thanks, so in terms of this hypothetical scenario the LN isn't really the right tool for the job in terms of getting value from a to b when starting at 0? I saw this question posed by another user earlier in the week and thought about how I would answer it, but I couldn't think of a decent solution. If I were the employer I would just end up finding another way to pay, be it on-chain, alt-chain or fiat, until the employee got his channels set up other wise I'd waste too much time on a LN based solution.
cool, LN allows bitcoin to act like nano... why not just use nano? if ford came along and invented a add-on that you could buy and attach to a car to make it act like a tesla car, why not just buy a tesla? lol. Why anyone would rather use Bitcoin + LN to be able to transact like nano, when you could just use nano itself in the first place, makes no sense to me
Your logic makes no sense, with venmo (once they approve my account) they can take all my money for no reason, they can lock me out of my account until I jump through hoops for them, they can fractional reserve lend my money, they can speculatively invest with my money, they can do absolutely anything they want with my money. When using Bitcoin on the Lightning Network, I need nobody's permission, I alone have control over my funds and what is done with them. These are "the entire point of a decentralized currency," public visibility is to ensure the supply does not increase past what has been agreed upon, which the LN can not do, as it is a protocol which conforms to the bitcoin protocol.
when you're taking paymnet on LN, you're not event taking payment in a decentralized crypto. Go try and find your LN tx on the bitcoin chain... you can't, because it doesn't exist, because LN tx's are not bitcoin tx's. The OP here is asking what cryptocurrency is best to accept as currency, they're not asking for a centralized layer 2 thats really no better than venmo.
You’re arguing a point that would only make sense in 2017 and before. TPS isn’t inclusive of just on chain anymore, especially when you start to debate energy usage per transaction. LN invalidates 99% of all other shitcoins, and enables Bitcoin to compete with payment provider services like Visa and PayPal. Excluding LN transactions is just plain ignorant of technology improvements. You’re trying to box Bitcoin into a legacy and outdated capability use case scenario, that’s short sighted and makes you look pretty fucking stupid.
LN tx's are not even on chain. a LN tx is not a btc tx, do you realize that? the whole point of crypto is that it's a decentralzied trust-less ledger. When you transact on ln, your tx is nowhere to be found, it's not on a publicly visible ledger, so what's the point of that? you might as well just use venmo at that point lmfao
To you and I and for a single transaction in western society sure. Now, let's say the employer has hired 1000 employees all in the same boat, that 20 cents now becomes $200. I'm just thinking out loud about what looks to be a chicken/egg problem, which is gaining inbound liquidity without KYC and starting with a bitcoin balance of 0, at this point why would users not just switch to a competing chain with dirt cheap mempool fees? Sure it's less secure, but it would do the job in this instance without faffing about with LN complexity.
Lightning Pool offers trustless inbound capacity. Good post with more information about Pool here: [https://lightning.engineering/posts/2020-11-02-pool-deep-dive/](https://lightning.engineering/posts/2020-11-02-pool-deep-dive/) Live data on LN pool here: [https://yield.kollider.xyz/d/H9GxLqt7z/lnpool](https://yield.kollider.xyz/d/H9GxLqt7z/lnpool)
so nobody knows if the LN is being productive? that's crazy. I mean, all these channels and nodes are nice; they're the LN infrastructures. But it's way more important as a KPI to know if the network is being used at scale. A city can build tons of roads and bridges and brag about its scale but it means nothing if very little cars are actually being driven on them.
But it's a race to the bottom in fees, friction, and user experience. The LN, Taproot, multi-sig, open-source software for wallets, and non-custodial yield is going to take away CEX's bitcoin business completely. Either that, or they'll keep it, even though it's unprofitable for them.