"How did we get these numbes?""How did we get these numbes?"
Each year River’s research team collaborates with many of the largest node operators. We aggregate their data and remove the overlap. We then extrapolate the results to the rest of the network that we don’t have data for. This way, we can reach an estimate of the total volume and transaction count.
Looks like they had numbers from ACINQ, Block, Kraken, LNBig, Breeze, LQwD, Lightspark, Wallet of Satoshi, and Thunder Games.
"Why did transaction count go down?""Why did transaction count go down?"
In 2023 there appears to have been significant experimentation with micropayments for gaming and messaging. Since Lightning transactions are extremely cheap, this added up to millions of transactions in total.
Those particular experiments apparently did not find product market fit and have largely disappeared.
You know what this means, folks? We are the micropayments remnant! Micropayments are like remittances, an obvious use-case for bitcoin that no one seems to believe in. Well, damn them all. I say, from this beachhead we're going to make micropayments a macro factor.
"Why was the average transaction size so large?""Why was the average transaction size so large?"
Wouters brings out the old Szabo on micropayments piece (#691251), and then, joining the chorus of everyone, predicts that AI will change this because "AI agents do not have a mental cost for each transaction they make."
But, for now:
The most common use case for Lightning transactions is sending funds from and to exchanges. These transactions are typically done in larger amounts.
I also missed this line:
I think this implies that their numbers are only 50% of the Lightning Network capacity.
They extrapolated afaik
I hate when I see reposrts like this expressed in dollars and not in sats.
FFS, LN is using sats not dollars !
don't tell SS his coinos tokens are not counted
My transactions here on SNs are verifiably routed via the LN as much as is possible.
Yours are not.
It matters not whether you use a custodial or non custodial wallet.
Showing attached LN wallets is the most you can do to support and show that you support the LN by maximising the ratio of transactions routed via the LN.
I do and you don't.
Any neutral observer would say that makes you look a lot like a bullshitting hypocrit.
This guy still thinks lightning is a failure:
Jeff Booth is correct. LN is also insanely private when used correctly, and it's easy to use correctly.
Wasn’t he a BSV stan?
yes: https://coingeek.com/hector-lopez-discusses-ai-blockchain-and-the-secret-to-winning-in-technology-video/#:~:text=However%2C%20for%20anyone%20serious%20about,only%20one%20scalable%20solution%3B%20BSV.
No numbers from SN? They call this a study?!
I remained skeptical of the "AI" story but I'm starting to think it may have legs.
Eventually I think almost everything is going to become a "service for LLMs" - things like each web search, product price comparisons, book an airline flight, rent a room....will become APIs across the board.
I'm not saying that you will "rent your hotel room with Bitcoin" - that may still happen via your credit card for time being, however you may load $10 into your AI Agent account each month and .00015 cents is spent on each API call, paid via LN.
Yea AI buries the lead, its not about agent payments, but machine to machine or app to app payments more broadly. AI is a subset of THAT.
There's a race to the bottom for cloud/internet/information services just one manifestation of such.
Lightning is the lowest cost of true-settlement, the future of apps is buying the resources they need access to natively in the app. Every app eventually becomes a Lightning wallet in some form.
I'm rather surprised by the monthly number. 5.22 million transactions per month is a lot. I think I would have felt that 1 million LN transactions a month was a high number.
Surprised as well....prediction markets?
What is Stacker News?
It is a social media platform intentionally created to enable a P2P V4V BTC denominated community.
Originally Stacker News (SN) custodyed sats on behalf of participants but the threat of government regulatory prosecution on the pretext of money transmitter forced a move away from the custody of sats by the platform to the platform enabling participants to send sats via their wallets.
To achieve this participants need to attach wallets to both send and receive sats.
Where participants do not or cannot attach LN wallets transactions will often default to Cowboy Credits.
This change was a compromise forced by the threat of government prosecution.
The difficulty of attaching both sending and receiving wallets is moderate- it takes some effort and newbie or non tech people may struggle with it, but most competent Bitcoiners can succeed in attaching wallets and thus enabling sats denominated P2P transactions.
But a number of Stackers have chosen not to attach wallets- in particular sending wallets which enable you to send sats into the SN community.
Very few have attached just a sending wallet- many have attach just a receiving wallet.
Those who only attach a receiving wallet can receive sats from others but cannot send sats into the community. They may feel that as content providers they have no need or obligation to send sats into and within the SN community. I disagree.
Where these receive but not send (horse but no gun) Stackers proclaim to be Bitcoiners but refuse to enable a sending wallet they are demonstrably hypocrits. They claim they want to build and grow the BTC LN MoE network but they cannot be bothered contributing toward that growth by attaching a sending wallet and demonstrating they are not just talking, but are also walking and supporting a sats denominated platform.
If we do not use the LN wherever and whenever we can it will not grow and develop.
Some claim it is too hard to attach wallets- its too hard on their self custody nodes or wallets- this just highlights how much work the LN still needs before it is capable of anything approaching 100% reliable MoE capability.
But the best way to grow and strengthen the LN is it use it – despite its remaining flaws and glitches.
When wallets are supported by people using them they receives transaction fees and can develop liquidity and systems further.
When LN wallets are not used the LN decays- it does not have the usage and fees income to grow.
So when self proclaimed advocates for BTC and LN refuse to attach wallets (especially sending wallets) I see hypocrit.
I will continue to see hypocrit until and unless someone can explain why I should not.
Calling me a Nazi, trolling and making fun of me crudely seeking to avoid the issues I raise will not stop me from asking why are you claiming to be a Bitcoiner but refusing to attach wallets and use the LN here where we can help it grow.
Now some are deliberately concealing their wallet status, as if this is about a right to privacy.
Concealing your wallet status means nobody else can verify whether or not you are serious about using BTC LN, or whether you are just an all talk no walk hypocrit.
Do not trust- verify.
What about this fundamental principle do they not understand?
And then they talk about 'content' being more important than whether or not you have attached wallets - in this context the intentional lack of attached wallets undermines your credibility as your actions do not match your words.
Your submitted content may be great, but you as someone claiming to be a serious Bitcoiner are undermining your credibility and the credibility of your content by being a hypocrit.
Your content, is tainted by your verifiable hypocrisy.
SNs needs both good content providers and those who pay for that content if it is succeed.
I am more in the latter group than the former but both are required overall or the model does not work.
So as a net contributor of sats and thus a net consumer of content I object where content providers refuse to engage in the P2P V4V ethos by refusing to attach both sending and receiving wallets and I will both withhold my contribution of sats and sometimes downvote in response.
V4V needs to work reciprocally or it will not work at all.
The content providers need net sats contributors/content consumers who send sats into the platform, or the entire platform fails.
https://twiiit.com/SDWouters/status/2024507942708351443
What is Stacker News?
It is a social media platform intentionally created to enable a P2P V4V BTC denominated community.
Originally Stacker News (SN) custodyed sats on behalf of participants but the threat of government regulatory prosecution on the pretext of money transmitter forced a move away from the custody of sats by the platform to the platform enabling participants to send sats via their wallets.
To achieve this participants need to attach wallets to both send and receive sats.
Where participants do not or cannot attach LN wallets transactions will often default to Cowboy Credits.
This change was a compromise forced by the threat of government prosecution.
The difficulty of attaching both sending and receiving wallets is moderate- it takes some effort and newbie or non tech people may struggle with it, but most competent Bitcoiners can succeed in attaching wallets and thus enabling sats denominated P2P transactions.
But a number of Stackers have chosen not to attach wallets- in particular sending wallets which enable you to send sats into the SN community.
Very few have attached just a sending wallet- many have attach just a receiving wallet.
Those who only attach a receiving wallet can receive sats from others but cannot send sats into the community. They may feel that as content providers they have no need or obligation to send sats into and within the SN community. I disagree.
Where these receive but not send (horse but no gun) Stackers proclaim to be Bitcoiners but refuse to enable a sending wallet they are demonstrably hypocrits. They claim they want to build and grow the BTC LN MoE network but they cannot be bothered contributing toward that growth by attaching a sending wallet and demonstrating they are not just talking, but are also walking and supporting a sats denominated platform.
If we do not use the LN wherever and whenever we can it will not grow and develop.
Some claim it is too hard to attach wallets- its too hard on their self custody nodes or wallets- this just highlights how much work the LN still needs before it is capable of anything approaching 100% reliable MoE capability.
But the best way to grow and strengthen the LN is it use it – despite its remaining flaws and glitches.
When wallets are supported by people using them they receives transaction fees and can develop liquidity and systems further.
When LN wallets are not used the LN decays- it does not have the usage and fees income to grow.
So when self proclaimed advocates for BTC and LN refuse to attach wallets (especially sending wallets) I see hypocrit.
I will continue to see hypocrit until and unless someone can explain why I should not.
Calling me a Nazi, trolling and making fun of me crudely seeking to avoid the issues I raise will not stop me from asking why are you claiming to be a Bitcoiner but refusing to attach wallets and use the LN here where we can help it grow.
Now some are deliberately concealing their wallet status, as if this is about a right to privacy.
Concealing your wallet status means nobody else can verify whether or not you are serious about using BTC LN, or whether you are just an all talk no walk hypocrit.
Do not trust- verify.
What about this fundamental principle do they not understand?
And then they talk about 'content' being more important than whether or not you have attached wallets - in this context the intentional lack of attached wallets undermines your credibility as your actions do not match your words.
Your submitted content may be great, but you as someone claiming to be a serious Bitcoiner are undermining your credibility and the credibility of your content by being a hypocrit.
Your content, is tainted by your verifiable hypocrisy.
SNs needs both good content providers and those who pay for that content if it is succeed.
I am more in the latter group than the former but both are required overall or the model does not work.
So as a net contributor of sats and thus a net consumer of content I object where content providers refuse to engage in the P2P V4V ethos by refusing to attach both sending and receiving wallets and I will both withhold my contribution of sats and sometimes downvote in response.
V4V needs to work reciprocally or it will not work at all.
The content providers need net sats contributors/content consumers who send sats into the platform, or the entire platform fails.
deleted by author
deleted by author