Maybe I'm just being pedantic. Or maybe I'm missing the plot, but these are my biggest pet peeves when people talk about LN

#1 when people misspell "lightning"

I get that English might not be your best language, but ffs get the name right.

Lightning. Lightening. Lighting.

E.x. someone posts, "this node routed X BTC today" and link a tweet from the node operator.

Since when did we abondon the idea of "don't trust verify"?

It's impossible to prove that a node routed something so all we have to go on is claims (trust) from node operators.

We should really say, "this node CLAIMS TO HAVE routed X BTC."

#3 when people praise capacity growth as a universally good thing

E.x. LN is "growing" look at these capacity charts, this is great for LN!

Not necessarily...

I don't like it when people talk about capacity growth like it's a universally good thing. We need better metrics to guage the "health" of a network. Imagine if we thought living things were healthy as long as they continued to grow. We'd probably let many creatures die from cancerous tumors.

Let me explain....

Capacity in LN is not like Whirlpool capacity or L2 capacity on other blockchains. The funds in channels are not "pooled" into a single liquidity source. Channels on LN are not fungible. Some are more valuable (good at routing) than others.

Imagine a worst case scenario: a new LN node comes online from a popular "BTC influencer". They use their influence to get their followers to open massive channels to their node. Suppose they manage to add 1-2% more capacity to the network because of their marketing campaign.

Is this good for LN? Well, maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

What if I said this influencer had no intention of opening any channels of their own. Thus, 100% of their capacity is inbound and they have no ability to route or send payments. They also have no intention of using their node to receive.

All of this new capacity is therefore worthless. Not only that, but other nodes in the network will waste compute and network requests trying to route thru this node since they have no idea about the relative balances.

The network would be better off without this node and it's massive capacity.

Again, this is a worst case scenario where every channel on this node is detrimental. Most channels fall along a spectrum of utility ranging from routing multiple BTC per day, to being a net drain on the network's resources.

We need better metrics to guage health of the network. This is difficult due to having to trust nodes for their routing statistics (see #2).

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @F 11 Sep

I think it's funny how your #1 is "when people misspell "lightning" "

and then immediately after, your #2 is " when people say something difinitive about ..."

Difinitive isn't a word. Definitive is the word you are trying to spell.

You caught me. At least there's no Definitive Network


LOL indeed that one makes me cry... and I see it more often from native english speakers.

"lightening" even for me as a non-native english speaker sounds FUCKING WEIRD... for a bitcoin related thing.

10 sats \ 1 replies \ @om 11 Sep

"lightening" looks like an in-joke of the same family as halvening and flippening.

Is not a joke. Is mostly done by shitcoiners or really dumb people.

Definition: noun a drop in the level of the uterus during the last weeks of pregnancy as the head of the fetus engages in the pelvis.

So tell me if this is not something done deliberately. What have to do this with LN? If you are a english speaker, you will know the meaning of this word.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @jeff 11 Sep

We need better metrics to guage [sic] the "health" of a network.

What should we use instead?

this influencer had no intention of opening any channels

Does this occur often?

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kobie 11 Sep

What should we use instead?

I dive into metrics a bit here

I hate to call them out but this senario was inspired by the node bCypher

11 sats \ 1 replies \ @om 11 Sep

I get that English might not be your best language, but ffs get the name right.


Take me to the gulag officer!

I think that capacity is as good a proxy as any for estimating the growth of the network. It's flawed as you point out, but I'm not aware of any other metrics we can use. Number of daily users / settlements would be better if we could determine these reliably, but alas that's impossible to determine (and that's a good thing).

That said, I often see people comparing Lightning capacity to the liquidity of other L2s. This is a false comparison IMO as it's a micropayment platform, not a trading platform like say the ETH L2s. There are tons of Lightning-enabled wallets, exchanges, nodes, vendors, and oddball services (like SN and podcasting 2.0). I use Lightning on a daily basis. But if you looked strictly at capacity, you'd come away thinking that Lightning's adoption is only marginally greater than that of Liquid's.