62 sats \ 8 replies \ @DarthCoin 20 Apr \ on: Let's talk real: did you have to pay for on-chain transactions post-halving? lightning
Luckily all my LN channels are OK. But I tried open one this morning, just playing around... and to open a 1M channel was asking me to pay 3M sats in fees. LOL this is ridiculous. idk how we are going to go forward.
For the moment I am well covered, with lots of channels and liquidity set in multiple LN wallets (self-custodial and custodial). If I get FC on one, I still have many others to use, until fees will go down and open more channels.
write
preview
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @wopwopwopwop 20 Apr
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @tolot 20 Apr
In your opinion, how are we going to deal with constant and consistent high fees environment when will be the case? This mental JPEGgers showed us that storms can arrive even without signals beforehand. Are we ready for it?
reply
42 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 20 Apr
High fees were expected. Is a natural evolution of Bitcoin.
The thing is that if we could find a way to limit these force closing channels, we could have a pretty solid payment network to use.
The high fees to open a channel are not such a big deal. people will get used to open once in a while a big channel and use it endlessly.
The real big problem is that you get force closed for various reasons, without consenting to it and you cannot do anything to stop it.
One thing is to get a coop close with a peer, because he have some technical problems and is announcing you to close his channels and another thing is to get a force channel because some dude in the jungle was running a shity node and your tx was passing through and get stuck, triggering a force close.
I hope soon we will have some good upgrades on LN implementations that will limit at minimum these force closures.
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @nikotsla 20 Apr
The real big problem is that you get force closed for various reasons, without consenting to it and you cannot do anything to stop it.
This the is main issue and a key problem to solve.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TNStacker 20 Apr
Dealing with an inadvertent force close from a couple weeks ago and I have no idea when I'll be able to reopen.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @nym 20 Apr
If I’m not mistaken, the high fees are due to the Rune issuance. Once they are issued then the sale or transfer is like a normal transaction in sats vB.
reply
106 sats \ 1 reply \ @javier 20 Apr
Main problem they have is that the one that paid the highest price gets the rune, so there is an evil incentive to increase more and more the fees. Currently, the number of tx in the mempool is not excesively high, under normal circunstances we would have like 70sat/vbyte with these numbers. Problem is this fucking incentive to pay more and more.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 20 Apr
Great point!
reply