deleted by author
733 sats \ 0 replies \ @beorange 3 Jun 2023
As someone who already worked on a service/tool that supported lightning payments (no longer active, went out of business), handling and managing lightning at scale has its own set of challenges.
So, he is not wrong, it requires some work and different capabilities. However it should not be an excuse for a major player such as Binance.
reply
268 sats \ 3 replies \ @jk_14 3 Jun 2023
I said so many times here already...
"Binance Is Cancer For Bitcoin"
Bitfinex has Lightning Network support since September 2020...
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @shibe 3 Jun 2023
Isn't Bitfinex/Tether also cancer for Bitcoin though?
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 4 Jun 2023
-
"Tether said on Wednesday it would invest 15% of its realized net profits into Bitcoin..."
-
"Tether is setting up a bitcoin mining operation in Uruguay using renewable energy..."
-
"Tether, the city of Lugano partner with Swiss universities to bring Bitcoin education to the masses..."
-
"Pay with Bitcoin and get 10% cashback in more than 250 shops in Lugano!"
Progress towards "Bitcoin Maxi" ? ;)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @iguano 3 Jun 2023
the implementation is not very good though.
reply
216 sats \ 1 reply \ @Lux 3 Jun 2023
"We would implement lightning but if our users discover that LN will kill all the shitcoins our business model ceases to exist."
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @designsats 3 Jun 2023
THIS
reply
60 sats \ 2 replies \ @SwearyDoctor 3 Jun 2023
when corpos speak of "difficult", they don't mean "how does the tech work." They mean "we have a setup we paid lawyers millions to watch and certify to minimize the danger that we get regulated, sued, or get horrible PR out of it". Read the post again with that in mind.
reply
31 sats \ 1 reply \ @energycurrency OP 3 Jun 2023
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwearyDoctor 3 Jun 2023
of course, you're right. On a higher level than me, because "what our lawyers tell us" IS in the end part of a strategy to squeeze as much money out of the thing as they can as well, by avoiding these troubles. But of course, beyond that, also by being able to charge more the way they do it, certainly.
Still, in both cases (or both parts of the one case), it's not a "how the tech works" problem either way.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @l0k18 3 Jun 2023
LOL don't need to make addresses, they are called "invoices" what a clown.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kristapsk 3 Jun 2023
Their infrastructure does not even handle onchain Bitcoin properly.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @energycurrency OP 3 Jun 2023
deleted by author
reply
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @orthwyrm 3 Jun 2023
What is the Bitfinex experience like? I find Kraken's implementation to be rather clunky.
With Kraken you must approve an address via email before withdrawing to it. For on-chain this is OK as an address can be reused and lasts indefinitely (poor privacy aside). But with LN invoices this is very cumbersome due to their one-time-use and expiration time. You need to flip back and forth between creating an invoice and approving email confirmations every time you want to withdraw.
reply
15 sats \ 0 replies \ @shibe 3 Jun 2023
I would imagine managing liquidity for such a large exchange would be a bit more complicated than that, even if they don't use their liquidity to route payments. Like making sure they have enough inbound/outbound liquidity and connecting to good peers.
I think that's a bit above Binance's usual forte of listing yet another ERC-20/BSC shittoken.
Also I should mention that Binance by default still uses Legacy addresses. It's so frustrating. The default address you get for deposits is a legacy address (i.e. the one the vast majority of people will use). Segwit address is listed as "BTC (Segwit)" which probably makes a lot of people think Segwit is just another sidechain like their BSC stuff.
Even if the reason was seemingly compatibility with 8 year old wallets that still haven't implemented the new address format, they could at the very least use P2SH segwit. Instead the chain gets clogged up every time Binance decides to consolidate.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @rijndael 3 Jun 2023
Running lightning as an individual is just installing a wallet.
Liquidity management, channel management, managing the hot keys, managing channel state and making sure that you have high availability for your nodes while keeping channel state consistent, all of things things are complicated and dont just drop into place with the cold storage systems that people have for onchain bitcoin.
Lightning at scale is very complex.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @03374a589e 4 Jun 2023
it be hard to build decentralized tools when your main system is centralized.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @scottathan 3 Jun 2023
They should try talking to Voltage. Their advising for large LN infrastructure projects is fantastic from what I hear.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @RdioActiv 3 Jun 2023
Translation: We can't embezzle customers coins if they are all locked up in lightning channels
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @2bithits 3 Jun 2023
With 100k sat withdrawal fees why would they implement lightning?
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @juanito 3 Jun 2023
as much as I don't like exchanges nor use them, it might be good to mention that their fees are now 25k sats.
reply
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @energycurrency OP 3 Jun 2023
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @2bithits 3 Jun 2023
Oh, I guess they recently put them back down again. My bad
Still too high IMO!
reply