pull down to refresh
259 sats \ 11 replies \ @random_ 22 Nov 2023 freebie \ on: Stranded sats bitcoin
Network fees impact what could be considered dust. For example, the no priority tier in mempool is 10 sats/vbyte. At current prices, that means tx's less than 5460 sat ($2) would cost more to move than they're worth. Is that dust?
One should increase their min_htlc size in a high fee environment because the risk of an expensive force closure. High min_htlc means that smaller payments will not be routed. I'm not sure L2 solves this problem.
One should increase their min_htlc size in a high fee environment because the risk of an expensive force closure. High min_htlc means that smaller payments will not be routed. I'm not sure L2 solves this problem.
Good point, there are some leaky abstractions on L2.
reply
Can you elaborate?
reply
Oh sorry, my reply just got zapped and that was a reminder about your reply, lol
With leaky abstractions, I just meant that we write software in layers to abstract underlying (complex) stuff away.
But more often than not, these abstractions are "leaky" since you still need to know some stuff about underlying layers as in this case, where you still need to care about onchain fees even though lightning should abstract that away. It does mostly but only mostly, thus it's a leaky abstraction.
Another example for a leaky abstraction is SQL. With SQL, we want to tell the database what we want (declarative) but we don't want to tell it how to do it (imperative). It should just take our query and the database engine should figure out what the best query plan is to deliver the results as fast as possible. When I write a SQL query, I don't want to care about which indices or JOINs should be used. But sometimes, the query gets really slow and then you need to dig into query plans and figure out what is going wrong.
But here are two good articles that explain it much better than I can:
- https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-abstractions/
- https://www.mirkosertic.de/blog/2012/08/the-law-of-leaky-abstractions/
From the second article:
As the systems we use become more and more complex, the number of abstractions that software developers must rely upon increases. Each abstraction attempts to hide complexity, allowing a software developer to create code that can “handle” all the variations in complexity that modern computing requires.However, if Spolskys Law of Leaky Abstractions is true, then in order to create software that is reliable, software developers must learn many of the abstraction’s underlying details anyway.
Does that help?
reply
That's a great link, thanks for the share. Love this line:
the abstractions save us time working, but they don’t save us time learning.
reply
Yes and no. Yes, in that it was a nice description of leaky abstractions. No, in that I'm not clear what you mean about how L2 is an example of that.
Is it that, with all this mucking around with min_htlc settings, and even the details of worrying about managing UTXOs for dust, that we're having to care about things that normal people don't give a shit about because they just want to send their money around without thinking about it, as per your SQL example?
Now that I write it out, I'm guessing that's what you meant. But you can tell me if if I've got it.
reply
Is it that, with all this mucking around with min_htlc settings, and even the details of worrying about managing UTXOs for dust, that we're having to care about things that normal people don't give a shit about because they just want to send their money around without thinking about it, as per your SQL example?
Yes, basically.
L2 should abstract onchain fees away. But because force closures can happen, we still need to care about onchain fees.
reply
Leaky abstractions in software mean layers meant to simplify complex tasks still require understanding of underlying details, like needing to know onchain fees in lightning networks or optimizing SQL queries despite its declarative nature.
reply
For example, the no priority tier in mempool is 10 sats/vbyte. At current prices, that means tx's less than 5460 sat ($2) would cost more to move than they're worth. Is that dust?
The Unchained article linked to in the SN article I linked calls this "operative dust" which I like -- dust (like most things) is a relative term, that takes its meaning on prevailing circumstances. At the margin, UTXOs move in and out of the "dust" category.
I'm not sure L2 solves this problem.
I'm too dumb about the technical nuances of LN to say anything specific about it -- I was using L2 in the fully-general sense to mean any mechanism by which people / entities can transact that's not base chain.
reply
Thanks for the new vocabulary!
I'm too dumb about...
Fuck that noise. 80iq or not, you gotta have a growth mindset.
Besides, I had just assumed you meant LN. Not sure about other L2's. For all I know liquid is the holy grail.
reply
Yeah, my mom always says that too. The growth mindset part, not the Liquid part. Although maybe her position on Liquid has evolved.
reply
Forgot the saying but now I remember.
never forget your entire life that you are a divine and sacred and holy man
Or woman
reply