Bitcoin Forum
January 21, 2019, 07:17:46 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Will LN be able to retrieve stuck addresses?  (Read 410 times)
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1199


View Profile
November 18, 2017, 06:56:16 PM
 #1

What I mean is, all these addresses that contain small amounts of BTC, not worth really moving anymore due the fees going up, will be able to be used again?

For example, when I was a noob many years ago, someone sent me a tiny amount of satoshis which back then you could use and move around. Right now that small amount turned into 5 bucks, which I could use to for example pay an extra couple of days of VPN service. Problem is, the current fees make it not worth it. These satoshis are in a wallet that doesn't have any other addresses, so I couldn't join them with bigger amounts. Also it's on legacy format address so I can't really use segwit (and I would like to use even lower fees than segwit for such a small amount)

Will LN allow me to move these funds?

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1548098266
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548098266

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1548098266
Reply with quote  #2

1548098266
Report to moderator
1548098266
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548098266

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1548098266
Reply with quote  #2

1548098266
Report to moderator
achow101
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1982


bc1qshxkrpe4arppq89fpzm6c0tpdvx5cfkve2c8kl


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2017, 07:37:59 PM
 #2

Will LN allow me to move these funds?
No, it will not. LN requires you to make an on chain transaction to be able to begin using LN, so if you don't/can't make an onchain transaction with those coins, then you cannot use LN.

cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1199


View Profile
November 18, 2017, 07:57:49 PM
 #3

Will LN allow me to move these funds?
No, it will not. LN requires you to make an on chain transaction to be able to begin using LN, so if you don't/can't make an onchain transaction with those coins, then you cannot use LN.

Well, this is a problem then. What happens with all that money? it just gets stuck forever?

Also in what sense do you need to make an on-chain transaction? You mean that I would need to make for example 1 BTC transaction, then I could make microtransactions from that 1 BTC?

Where would this 1 BTC be sitting at if it needs to be moved? where does it needs to be moved? is it safe there?

achow101
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1982


bc1qshxkrpe4arppq89fpzm6c0tpdvx5cfkve2c8kl


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2017, 08:09:48 PM
 #4

Well, this is a problem then. What happens with all that money? it just gets stuck forever?
It's not stuck, you can still spend it.

Also in what sense do you need to make an on-chain transaction? You mean that I would need to make for example 1 BTC transaction, then I could make microtransactions from that 1 BTC?
In LN, you need to create a funding transaction which sends the money you want to put into the channel into a special 2-of-2 multisig address. From there, you can do microtransactions with the money you deposited.

Where would this 1 BTC be sitting at if it needs to be moved? where does it needs to be moved? is it safe there?
It sits in a special 2-of-2 multisig address which can only be spent from if the 2 parties in the payment channel agree to it. You should read up on how payment channels and LN works.

cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1199


View Profile
November 19, 2017, 04:05:26 PM
 #5


It's not stuck, you can still spend it.

How? if the fee becomes consistently higher than the amount held in the address.


In LN, you need to create a funding transaction which sends the money you want to put into the channel into a special 2-of-2 multisig address. From there, you can do microtransactions with the money you deposited.


I got the idea, but what happens when you can't afford the first on-chain transaction? If the idea is "banking the unbanked" as Andreas Antonopoulos goes around saying, how can some poor person in good knows where, afford that first on-chain transaction? Let's say average on-chain transaction reaches $50-100 in the future and you want to bank the unbanked in africa or who knows where else. Im not sure if they will have that $50-100 entry fee (+ the amount you want to use for microtransactions) lying around.

BillyBobZorton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1019


View Profile
November 19, 2017, 04:18:14 PM
 #6

I had the same question about people not being able to afford that initial on-chain transaction.

If I think there will be "liquidity providers", which could be anyone as far as I know, willing to lock his BTC for another person, and people would connect to your channel. You would make some passive income doing this, PoS style.
The bigger amount of BTC you provide, the more passive income you will make, as the highest volume of people will connect to your channel (this is I think, why LN gets criticized as centralizing, since most people not able to afford running their own channel, would end up connecting to the same whales). Im not sure what the consequences of this would be.

Correct me if im wrong.
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1260


View Profile WWW
November 19, 2017, 04:58:33 PM
 #7


It's not stuck, you can still spend it.

How? if the fee becomes consistently higher than the amount held in the address.
The money is effectively lost.

You might be able to work out a deal with a mining pool in which you provide them with a transaction with inputs and no outputs and the pool crediting some account of yours a portion of the value of what was "donated" to the pool, although this would only make sense if the pool owed you money as a result of your normal business activity.

This is a very good reason to advocate for a larger maximum block size.

3PjXm2XYDKLV5mN3oiKzNTyVvSkqP3ujeq <-- tipping address Advertise here
HeRetiK
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 994
Merit: 904


the forkings will continue until morale improves


View Profile
November 19, 2017, 05:53:26 PM
 #8


It's not stuck, you can still spend it.

How? if the fee becomes consistently higher than the amount held in the address.

Try consolidating these few Satoshis with some of your other coins by sending them with an ultra-low fee to another wallet you own. It may take some days, but they will be arrive sooner or later. If your transaction gets dropped from the mempool after 1-2 weeks, just try again. It'll get through eventually.

In LN, you need to create a funding transaction which sends the money you want to put into the channel into a special 2-of-2 multisig address. From there, you can do microtransactions with the money you deposited.


I got the idea, but what happens when you can't afford the first on-chain transaction? If the idea is "banking the unbanked" as Andreas Antonopoulos goes around saying, how can some poor person in good knows where, afford that first on-chain transaction? Let's say average on-chain transaction reaches $50-100 in the future and you want to bank the unbanked in africa or who knows where else. Im not sure if they will have that $50-100 entry fee (+ the amount you want to use for microtransactions) lying around.

It's a valid concern, but I honestly doubt that on-chain transactions will reach fees of that magnitude once lightning network gets deployed. Even if that were the case, people would most likely simply use alternative crypto-currencies until they reach capacity as well.

cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1199


View Profile
November 19, 2017, 07:29:18 PM
 #9


It's not stuck, you can still spend it.

How? if the fee becomes consistently higher than the amount held in the address.
The money is effectively lost.

You might be able to work out a deal with a mining pool in which you provide them with a transaction with inputs and no outputs and the pool crediting some account of yours a portion of the value of what was "donated" to the pool, although this would only make sense if the pool owed you money as a result of your normal business activity.

This is a very good reason to advocate for a larger maximum block size.

The money is actually not lost... as suggested by HeRetiK above, you could just send a bigger amount of BTC above the resultant fee and mix both coinbases to join a transaction that includes the money that's stuck on this wallet which only got this only one address. Of course, you have to consider if it's worth it as you would lose money in fees doing this in each address that's stuck somewhere you had a wallet with enough funds to transact it out.



It's not stuck, you can still spend it.

How? if the fee becomes consistently higher than the amount held in the address.

Try consolidating these few Satoshis with some of your other coins by sending them with an ultra-low fee to another wallet you own. It may take some days, but they will be arrive sooner or later. If your transaction gets dropped from the mempool after 1-2 weeks, just try again. It'll get through eventually.

In LN, you need to create a funding transaction which sends the money you want to put into the channel into a special 2-of-2 multisig address. From there, you can do microtransactions with the money you deposited.


I got the idea, but what happens when you can't afford the first on-chain transaction? If the idea is "banking the unbanked" as Andreas Antonopoulos goes around saying, how can some poor person in good knows where, afford that first on-chain transaction? Let's say average on-chain transaction reaches $50-100 in the future and you want to bank the unbanked in africa or who knows where else. Im not sure if they will have that $50-100 entry fee (+ the amount you want to use for microtransactions) lying around.

It's a valid concern, but I honestly doubt that on-chain transactions will reach fees of that magnitude once lightning network gets deployed. Even if that were the case, people would most likely simply use alternative crypto-currencies until they reach capacity as well.


Fees will go up on-chain with LN, as far as I can predict. Since LN is just packaged on-chain transactions, if a ton of people use LN, the overall on-chain fee goes up, which will be annoying for someone that

1) Doesn't want a bigger blocksize
2) Isn't really interested in microtransacting over BTC

Since when I need to make an on-chain transaction, the fee will be higher due LN usage, which is why I would rather see LN over Litecoin, and leave BTC as digital gold only.

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!