pull down to refresh
1221 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 9 Jan \ parent \ on: Why do people declare the LN a failure? Ask_SN
Totally agree with this post and your other 2 tweets:
- https://nitter.net/CapitalistDog1/status/1737896114429272380
- https://nitter.net/CapitalistDog1/status/1737532103951020518
I will just add this:
https://i.postimg.cc/sXmH6BvR/vader-power-dark-side.jpg
The todays problems with BTC and LN are not the fees, but the stupid force closes of channels.
If we find a way to limit to minimum reasons a force closing channel, LN will work just fine.
Opening channels in high fee environment is NOT the problem, the force closing channels is the problem.
If I have the certainty that a channel will not get force closed in the next year, I could easily manage my batch channels opening in a better way and cheaper.
But if I open today a 20M sats channel and in few months get force closed because some stupid shity node in the routing path got stucked HTLCs (not being my fault), that hurts a lot and disrupt massively the network.
In theory you do not have to close a channel if it just work fine and route payments. You close it ONLY in emergency cases and even then first you try to have a cooperative closure.
But yeah, people nowadays just come up with stupid ideas to "fix Bitcoin" and moving away from Bitcoin values.
I am tired of all this bullshit proposals.