Seems like this would reduce fees and help miners manage utxos. What say you?
pull down to refresh
34 sats \ 11 replies \ @benthecarman 11 Jun 2023
you dont want lightning channels with miners
reply
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @fiatbad 11 Jun 2023
Why not? I want Lightning for everything.
I understand it adds extra complexity on their end. They would save money on the on-chain fees, but they would pay just as much to get that outbound liquidity. I could see them opening an extremely large channel to a hub like OpenNode, and use that one channel to pay out lots of people. And then close & reopen the channel after the outbound liquidity dries up. This strategy probably would cut down a lot of the fees.
reply
100 sats \ 9 replies \ @benthecarman 11 Jun 2023
all the security assumptions of lightning break down if your counterparty is a miner
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @om 11 Jun 2023
wait, what?
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @benthecarman 11 Jun 2023
the assumption is that you can get the latest state tx into the blockchain before your counterparty and miners will do that because they want fees today. However a miner with a channel will exclude your transaction because they can get the lightning channel balance instead.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @om 11 Jun 2023
One miner will exclude my transaction, the next miner will include it. I got a whole week to slash the attacker.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @benthecarman 11 Jun 2023
if the miner has enough hash rate and liquidity on lightning it could make sense to attempt to reorg
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LNAnon69420 11 Jun 2023
deleted by author
reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @LNAnon69420 11 Jun 2023
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @om 11 Jun 2023
I did not see anything remotely resembling "all the security assumptions of lightning break down".
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @LNAnon69420 11 Jun 2023
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @om 11 Jun 2023
But nobody is able to delay or block people from posting transactions. Otherwise LN is indeed in trouble, and not only LN. Overall this doesn't look like something to worry about.
reply on another page
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 11 Jun 2023
Nicehash did. But quite honestly is because they would be terribly outbound heavy with no reason to receive any of that liquidity. It would also be a pain on the receiving end.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nymkappa_ 11 Jun 2023
Summed amounts are probably too big. Remember each block their find has at least 6.25 BTC which they need to redistribute. The liquidity will only go in one direction (from the pool to miners) so they would need to constantly do swaps to refill their channels. This is not even mentioning how unreliable the lightning network is if you run your own lightning node.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LNAnon69420 11 Jun 2023
deleted by author
reply