It only takes 10,000 USD per hour to cripple Lightning. \ stacker news ~bitcoin

It only takes 10,000 USD per hour to cripple Lightning.

154 sats \ 24 comments \ @brianoflondon 15 Nov 2022 bitcoin

Isn't that a bit of a worry?

479 sats \ 0 replies \ @muteness11 15 Nov 2022

Just throwing numbers without an indicators or research or evidence doesnt really help with anything.

To me, the post feels like the stupid clickbait titles infulencers use......do better Brian!

347 sats \ 0 replies \ @pillar 15 Nov 2022

How does a clogged mempool cripple Lightning? Existing channels can happily move funds around. New channels can be opened, it's just slightly pricier.

Could you elaborate?

70 sats \ 0 replies \ @gd 15 Nov 2022

This might be one of the worst takes I've seen on SN so far...

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @brianoflondon OP 15 Nov 2022

The fundamental problem is that if Lightning routing isn't profitable on its own, at best it will be performed by entities who will capture and sell information to pay for the service.

Can Lightning close up the privacy holes fast enough?

I don't know.

1 sat \ 13 replies \ @brianoflondon OP 15 Nov 2022

Look at the fees in the mempool.

482 sats \ 12 replies \ @ln123 15 Nov 2022

If you're worried, I suggest doing a bit more research to understand the interplay between L1 and L2 networks

Also, if you are going to make contentious comments on SN, at least back it up with some reasoned analysis, or link to a reliable source.

288 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Nov 2022

Well said. OP is a well known shill for shitcoins. Don't expect too much from him.

11 sats \ 10 replies \ @brianoflondon OP 15 Nov 2022

Trying to run a routing node as a business has a slim profitability when fees are 1sat/vB.

It only takes a pittance's worth of transaction fees to send everybody's fees up to 16x that.

Lightning is all very happy for a closed circle jerk of rebalancing and hunting for forwarding fees (who knows how much of the traffic today is this? I've seen estimates of 80%+).

Those of us trying to actually build a useful system which does involve moving Bitcoin on and off Lightning sometimes have to think about stuff like this.

32 sats \ 6 replies \ @ln123 15 Nov 2022

Thanks for expanding on your comments. I concur that the cost of opening / closing channels impacts on profitability.

It doesn't exactly 'cripple' lightning though. There are many reasons to run channels other than to make a profit, eg:

To accept payments as a merchant
To avoid on-chain fees when making multiple payments to a counterparty
Improved transaction privacy

It's also worth remembering that we've been very fortunate to have 1sat/vB lately. In the future this fee MUST increase, to secure the network.

1sat/vB is not sustainable. We should prepare for 1000sat/vB and beyond and build an ecosystem around that.

5 sats \ 1 reply \ @brianoflondon OP 15 Nov 2022

I run a gateway, about 70% of my flow by volume involves me sending out Lightning, 30% I receive it. I need to keep adding Bitcoin to my Lightning node. This I usually do by opening new channels.

I also know exactly what fees I'm paying to make transactions for my customers and the network as a whole is not as cheap to use as Lightning people would like.

The simple fact is because all of Bitcoin's inflation has always gone to miners and will continue to until it ends, Lightning will become increasingly expensive to use.

At 1000 sat/vB the only people running routing nodes will be centralised big money services and the whole network will start to look expensive to use.

51 sats \ 0 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 15 Nov 2022

lol so you're having trouble managing liquidity and you can't open channels for near free anymore

Grow up

1 sat \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Nov 2022

Many people still do not realize or understand that:

onchain will be exclusively to open/close channels, and only when is really need it
LN will be exclusively for making payments, fast and secure. Fees will increase in time also on LN, not just onchain. Is the market that will decide.

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @brianoflondon OP 15 Nov 2022

Lightning will not grow to handle the larger transactions in any reasonable time frame and the requirement of putting at risk an amount of capital equal to the amount you need to receive is a big issue.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Nov 2022

Nobody is forcing you to put any capital. EVERYTHING is optional.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @muteness11 15 Nov 2022

interesting take ...check tweet no 6 onwards

13 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Nov 2022

Trying to run a routing node as a business has a slim profitability when fees are 1sat/vB

You are welcome to drop the towel and move away. LN is NOT a milking cow... is a payment network for Bitcoin. If you are interested only in profits, you are mistaken. As much that many (shitcoiners) think are in Bitcoin for profits... we (bitcoin maxis) are NOT!

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @brianoflondon OP 15 Nov 2022

I'm not routing by design. Every now and then I try to encourage sats to move from one channel to another by adjusting fees but that's a distraction from my real business.

If there's no money in routing and running the network, the infrastructure won't be there or will be captured by SBF and his pals.

Thank you for your great volunteer work but that isn't enough.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Nov 2022

No worry, LN will still work without your "capital".

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Eximpius 15 Nov 2022

Where did you get this from? Seems like BS to me

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @notgeld 15 Nov 2022

It only takes 10000 USD per ever to run a well-connected Lightning node.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jeff 15 Nov 2022

I don't think the word "cripple" is fair.

I think there are definitely business models that will work better and worse for LN.

Stuff where you pay random amounts to random other people at random intervals, I could see those kinds of transactions getting expensive or not landing in LN.

But stuff where the users/customers are pre-paying for a service today, or where you're dealing with routine and predictable amounts, especially to the same sets of recipients, I think that's going to work better.