Should LN channel open/close transactions be treated differently?
1455 sats \ 22 comments \ @kenn_b 9 May 2023 bitcoin
While the stress test on the Bitcoin network is ongoing, it is apparent that LN adoption needs to rise to alleviate the stress on the L1 chain. And hopefully it will, due to this high fee environment.  
However, if you run an LN node, this creates an economical problem for you. 
The biggest fees you usually incur are the open/close channel transactions. (assuming you are not rebalancing like a madman, but rather control the flow with fee and htlc management).
Since we want the LN network to be functional and fluid, new nodes need to come online and new channels need to be opened. Inactive channels need to be closed, etc. Now, who in their right mind would want to do it during such high onchain fees? (sometimes you don't even have a choice if a force close happens due to some error or other circumstances).
So on one hand, we scream that LN is the future. On the other hand, growth and maintenance of LN is crippled by this environment. Plus, if bitcoin hits mass adoption, these onchain fees are just the beginning. They will be much higher, so moving a few million sats will be impossible.  Wouldn't we want to incentivize the LN node runners, rather than penalize them for the onchain shenanigans?
Perhaps this is a stupid thought, but what if the open/close transactions are treated differently than normal onchain transactions, so they do not have to be subject to the high fees.
I have no idea if this is technically possible/feasible, but it would make sense if LN should replace the onchain gridlock. There could be some standard fee that these special transactions will pay and they'd be prioritized in mempools to get them confirmed, so LN can function properly.
I am worried that many node runners will stop running nodes because of the high fee problems and the network will be much more centralized with big players.  (Disregarding the high fees, there is already a trend where long time node runners stop running public nodes and only have private nodes. Add the high fees problem and this public node exodus will be even higher.)
What do you think? Is this a crazy thought or would it have some merit?
write
preview
related posts
300 sats \ 3 replies \ @2bithits 9 May 2023
I don't think fees this high will be sustainable for too much longer. So we should get more chances to open channel's when they go back down.
This is taste of the future. Hopefully more bitcoiners will be setting up a solid lightning node & keep it running.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 9 May 2023
I don't think fees this high will be sustainable for too much longer
I don't think fees this high will be sustainable for too much longer, even there is no block subsidy right now... ha-ha-ha
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kenn_b OP 9 May 2023
You are probably right, however, if you think about the future, the traffic on onchain will be even higher and you add to it an increase in BTC price and your fees are off the charts.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @2bithits 9 May 2023
I'm just saying I think the ordinals/BRC token stuff will die down in the next few weeks or months. Then is the time to get your lightning node in order. Open channel's when you think fees are reasonable.
If fees don't go down & you can't afford to open channel's, custodial lightning or fedi mints might be your best option
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @badabing 9 May 2023
Might create another attack vector: spamming the network with cheap channel closes/opens.
But I understand your concern. I have a lot of faith in the excellent LN devs.
reply
20 sats \ 6 replies \ @03365d6a53 9 May 2023
in a few years we will look back and smile at how a 20 eur tx fee was considered "high", lol
we ain't seen nothin yet
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 9 May 2023
There's no such thing as "20eur tx fee". Over Bitcoin LN we use ONLY sats. Stop saying that fees are in eur.
reply
5 sats \ 3 replies \ @franzap 9 May 2023
Darth would you be offended if we said fees cost about "a lunch"? I mean fuck fiat but it's the way everyday items are priced in, and it's a more logical way of understanding how much something costs. Even for me that I don't live in Europe.
If I asked you how much an average lunch cost 10 years ago in sats you'd have no idea, but you would have an approximate notion expressed in euro.
reply
5 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 9 May 2023
Get used to sats, think in sats, no matter how much is in fiat, we will always transact in sats over Bitcoin network. https://www.pricedinbitcoin21.com/
The 1st step of adoption is to think in sats. Saying "I paid $10 in fees to send onchain" is such a moronic term. You are not transferring any fucking dollar over Bitcoin, only sats. Dollars have nothing to do with Bitcoin network.
reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @franzap 9 May 2023
I know perfectly well how many sats I paid in fees because that's what they're priced in (in bitcoin).
Why be the thought police though? If people want to express an equivalent in euro, dollar, lunches or fucking chairs, let them be
Only thing that matters is that they are using bitcoin
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 9 May 2023
No, this is not policing. Is about modeling the bitcoin mentality and help them move out from fiat mentality (that is eating from inside).
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @03365d6a53 9 May 2023
well in that case I revert my comment. fees (in sats) probably won't rise so much.
reply
20 sats \ 2 replies \ @faithandcredit 9 May 2023
I just need to get this off my chest. Dont upvote. Never upvote me. Im always just ranting fyi. I should probably not do that. So last one. Last time.
But imo the problem is not that fees are high its that they are unstable. For example you plan and structure your product or service based on $0.01 to $2 fees which was reasonable for most of the year. But now all of a sudden the fees spike to $20 and you are faced with a problem. Do you adapt, or do you wait? Or something else. Thats the problem. And no, i dont think there is a way to get fees stabler than they are. Except with time. But lets see.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kilianbuhn 11 May 2023
Yeah but fees on LN are stable. The onchain fees are just demand & supply for opening channels
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kenn_b OP 9 May 2023
True true. For services that rely on this, it must be a nightmare.
reply
32 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 9 May 2023
Have some patience, everything will be OK.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @franzap 9 May 2023
Sounds like soft regulation, it's going to backfire. As much as it sucks we need to learn this lesson and build better tools
reply
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 9 May 2023
You want people to do the same amount of work, for free? Not only is it illogical, but it is impractical. Lightning channel opens are indistinguishable from any other multisig transaction, and with taproot, indistinguishable from any other taproot transaction.
If you want to provide people channel opens for free, you can go right ahead. Thank you for volunteering.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kenn_b OP 9 May 2023
Thanks for your reply.
Firstly, nobody was talking about anything free. Of course, there should be a payment.
The whole idea was on the premise that LN helps to secure bitcon's future as useful protocol for fast/cheap transactions. If this is the case, then we need to make sure running a node/opening a channel is viable economically. If it won't be, then how does that help anybody.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 9 May 2023
It's viable economically because it can support many payments. That's how lightning helps.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kakocuro 10 May 2023
I think one aspect of the high fees could be this.
Imagine, you have a channel which is quite small (of cousre it shouldn't, but it is) and then it gets force closed and the fees onchain are so high that the channel funds are not enough. How does that get resolved?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0fje0 9 May 2023
What do you think? Is this a crazy thought or would it have some merit?
Interesting. I think it may well have merit.
Like you, I also have no idea if this is technically feasible but I hope your idea can somehow be seen by people who do have the ability to assess this.
That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if it's already been discussed elsewhere. If anyone knows, please educate us?
reply