Lightning Network Discussion Thread

[Rath_]

Do you need a full node, or can run in light mode?

Most of the Lightning Network implementations require user to run a full Bitcoin node. Take a look at neutrino if you have limited resources. LND supports btcd, bitcoind (full node) and neutrino (light node) but keep in mind that it is still an experimental client. Here you can download it for any operating system.

[1715008890]

1715008890

[1715008890]

1715008890

[1715008890]

1715008890

[1715008890]

1715008890

[Wind_FURY]

I am here to learn. I will continue debating with you until I am as smart as you.

 

I can honestly say, Hell would literally freeze over before that happens.
But it is good to have goals.  

It is not an assumption , it is a cost basis from the break even point of maintaining a $60 per month VPS.
Right now people are just doing it for Free and just losing money in the hope profit comes later.

It is an assumption until you run a Lightning node yourself and compute everything. But did you already not say that Lightning nodes do not earn enough from fees?

Definition of the word : Assumption
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

I will replace the term Cost Basis with the Term Input Costs,
to see if you understand that better.

Definition of Input Cost:
Cost of direct material, direct labor, and other overhead items devoted to the production of a good or service.

LN hubs requires a computer & internet access, which no one can deny.
Therefore current prices of a decent VPS are ~$60 per month.
So that $60 is your minimum input cost.
(Notice the time to become proficient running a LN hub was not even included in the input costs.)

So calculating the break even point of what each LN transaction has to meet to match the input cost of $60 is pure math , not assumption.

Yes but Lighnting deniers assumed nodes will take advantage of the users by imposing high fees to profit. Now that it was disproved, the new FUD will be "Lightning will not work because nodes cannot earn from fees". That was the point.

Make up your minds.

You mean cheat in Lightning? Yes, there will be penalties if you cheat.

If someone can impose penalties and Take away your funds,
it directly means that you NEVER had Total Control as you like to keep asserting which is a false statement.

Example: In Onchain Bitcoin where you control your private keys,
No one can Take any funds from you unless you agree to send them the payment.
They can send you a bill, but they can't make you pay, it is your choice.

With LN Multi signature, the LN Hub can grant your funds to the counterparties at any time their rule system dictates without you having any ability at all to block it.
Not the total control myth , you keep propagating, the most you can truly say, is that you have shared control of the LN funds with the hub.

The Fees the hubs take from you , you can't stop the hubs from getting their fees.
Close a channel and immediately use your funds , You can't do it because they are time locked and you do not have full control of your funds.*Until the Time Locks Expire.*

Wrong you can broadcast the latest state of your channel anytime. Did Andreas Brekken not close his channels but only having minor problems?

https://medium.com/andreas-tries-blockchain/bitcoin-lightning-network-4-what-happens-when-you-close-half-of-the-lightning-network-b25b330dfad2

The remaining channels cannot close gracefully because the Lightning Node on the other side of the channel is offline.
I force close these channels using lncli closechannel --force.

Closing a channel using --force results in a unilateral close which makes the funds unavailable to me.
The amount of time the funds are locked up depends on the channel policy. This policy is negotiated when the channel opens.
Most channels will release the funds to me in between 1440 and 20180 minutes.

20180 minutes is ~ 2 weeks.

So until those time locks expire, he will not regain total access to his funds. IE: Can't spend any until the time locks expire.  

There are rules. Do you believe it would be a good idea not to have penalties in Lightning?

Plus about control, yes you have full control of Bitcoins because there is no custodian risk. You do not need to trust anyone to hold your coins on your behalf.

[Xian01]

Day 23.

Total funding provided is ~2BTC or ~2% of current network value.

Cut fees in half from default values.

  "version": 160200,
  "subversion": "/Satoshi:0.16.2/",
  "protocolversion": 70015,
  "localservices": "000000000000040d",
  "localrelay": true,
  "timeoffset": 0,
  "networkactive": true,
  "connections": 121,
 
---

    "num_pending_channels": 0,
    "num_active_channels": 178,
    "num_peers": 184

---

[Bitcoin]
bitcoin.active=1
bitcoin.basefee=500
bitcoin.feerate=5
bitcoin.minhtlc=18
bitcoin.timelockdelta=18

---

    "day_fee_sum": "8",
    "week_fee_sum": "22",
    "month_fee_sum": "37"

[Carlton Banks]

Do you believe it would be a good idea not to have penalties in Lightning?

eltoo would remove the penalty for broadcasting old channel states, so it's not impossible (but this depends on a new opcode being soft forked into bitcoin script)

[Xian01]

Day 25.

2018-08-08 08:52:16.537 [INF] ATPL: Processing new external signal
2018-08-08 08:52:16.537 [INF] ATPL: Triggering attachment directive dispatch, total_funds=0.23550447 BTC
2018-08-08 08:52:16.537 [INF] ATPL: No eligible candidates to connect to

---

    "num_pending_channels": 0,
    "num_active_channels": 172,
    "num_peers": 176

---

    "day_fee_sum": "2",
    "week_fee_sum": "25",
    "month_fee_sum": "40"

[Xian01]

Day 28.

Channel balances were being sucked dry, pretty quickly, at the low rates I was offering.

Reset to default funding values.

"If you want access to my liquidity and routing, you're going to fucking pay for it. Goddamnit."

            "base_fee_msat": "1000",
            "fee_per_mil": "10",
            "fee_rate": 0.00001

[Zin-Zang]

Day 28.

Channel balances were being sucked dry, pretty quickly, at the low rates I was offering.

Reset to default funding values.

"If you want access to my liquidity and routing, you're going to fucking pay for it. "

           "base_fee_msat": "1000",
            "fee_per_mil": "10",
            "fee_rate": 0.00001

Ok ,
Just to make sure I am understanding your #s.
Are you saying you are now charging 0.00001 bitcoin per transaction. (Which is the default.)
Which is at the moment the equivalent of 0.06 US$ per transaction.

Is this per each LN transaction?

Correct me if I misunderstood.

Thanks.

[Rath_]

Are you saying you are now charging 0.00001 bitcoin per transaction. (Which is the default.)
Which is at the moment the equivalent of 0.06 US$ per transaction.

Is this per each LN transaction?

The total fee charged is basefee + (amount * feerate / 1000000), where amount is the forwarded amount.

[Zin-Zang]

Are you saying you are now charging 0.00001 bitcoin per transaction. (Which is the default.)
Which is at the moment the equivalent of 0.06 US$ per transaction.

Is this per each LN transaction?

The total fee charged is basefee + (amount * feerate / 1000000), where amount is the forwarded amount.

Ok say the amount is .1 btc sent
basefee + (amount * feerate / 1000000)
.00001000 +(.1 *0.00001 / 1000000) =

Converted to US$
$0.06 + (amount so small , it is of no issue)=

Seems to be no point to this as the # is too small to matter, are you sure this is correct?
(amount * feerate / 1000000)
(.1 *0.00001 / 1000000)

Thanks.

[Rath_]

Seems to be no point to this as the # is too small to matter, are you sure this is correct?
(amount * feerate / 1000000)
(.1 *0.00001 / 1000000)

I don't think that it is wrong. The Lightning Network is meant to have low fees. If you want to charge more for your routing work no matter what the amount is then change the basefee. Since any channel might need re-balancing in the future, one should charge more for big amounts of bitcoins. You can set the feerate to be much higher but keep in mind that other nodes might offer lower cost for the same work.

[Wind_FURY]

Do you believe it would be a good idea not to have penalties in Lightning?

eltoo would remove the penalty for broadcasting old channel states, so it's not impossible (but this depends on a new opcode being soft forked into bitcoin script)

But that is not the point. After the new OPcode added, there would still be something else replacing the penalty system to keep Lightning transactions "honest".

Zin-Zing was pointing out that the users do not have control of their Bitcoins in Lightning because they can be penalized or because they have to wait for some time to receive your coins after broadcasting the latest state of their channel.

[Carlton Banks]

But that is not the point.

Yes it was, and it was the point I replied to. I would never reply directly or indirectly to the user you were talking to (who I think is a banned user evading a ban)

[d5000]

After the new OPcode added, there would still be something else replacing the penalty system to keep Lightning transactions "honest".

Zin-Zing was pointing out that the users do not have control of their Bitcoins in Lightning because they can be penalized or because they have to wait for some time to receive your coins after broadcasting the latest state of their channel.

That's exactly why I would like more research going into sidechains. A LN transaction can be fairly safe, but it cannot be compared to a Bitcoin on-chain transaction, as there is some "loss of control" involved.

I always compared LN to a "decentralized prepaid card". That's also the reason why I think it won't be frequently used for big purchases, like cars, homes, machinery, etc., but it's absolutely awesome for micropayments.

Sidechain transactions, in contrast, have much more in common with on-chain transactions, because they follow a similar paradigm (total control, no chargeback possible) only that the peg to Bitcoin makes them slightly more insecure. I consider them, thus, a perfect complement of LN, for larger transactions. The problem of sidechains is that still there is no working concept for it to be secure in a decentralized fashion. But if the Bitcoin community ignores the topic completely, then its possible that Ethereum or Cardano, both working on the concept, (I'm invested in neither of them, I tried to try Cardano but it failed to work.), or some other coin could be first-movers here.

[Carlton Banks]

After the new OPcode added, there would still be something else replacing the penalty system to keep Lightning transactions "honest".

Zin-Zing was pointing out that the users do not have control of their Bitcoins in Lightning because they can be penalized or because they have to wait for some time to receive your coins after broadcasting the latest state of their channel.

That's exactly why I would like more research going into sidechains. A LN transaction can be fairly safe, but it cannot be compared to a Bitcoin on-chain transaction, as there is some "loss of control" involved.

So, when an improvement to a new paradigm is on the table, that's somehow a reason to want other people to invest time and energy into contemplating an extension of an old paradigm? That doesn't make any sense

[d5000]

So, when an improvement to a new paradigm is on the table, that's somehow a reason to want other people to invest time and energy into contemplating an extension of an old paradigm? That doesn't make any sense

If you refer to eltoo: the "loss of control" problem also exists with LN-penalty, and all variants involving a contract that locks funds to be able to punish offenders.

The "old paradigm" is also the base for the "new paradigm", or would you like a LN-like offchain network without any on-chain transactions?

"Old" and "new" are not relevant categories I consider when it comes to value a proposal to improve scalability or whatever other problem. "Efficiency", "Security", "Decentralization", and "Control" are.

(And no, sidechains cannot replace LN. They can only complement it, as LN has some advantages sidechains could never achieve - so they're suited for different use cases.)

[Wind_FURY]

But that is not the point.

Yes it was, and it was the point I replied to. I would never reply directly or indirectly to the user you were talking to (who I think is a banned user evading a ban)

Haha. I am confused.

At any rate, anything better replacing Lightning's "penalty system" would be a plus for the network. What OPcodes are proposed to be soft forked in by the way?

[Rath_]

At any rate, anything better replacing Lightning's "penalty system" would be a plus for the network. What OPcodes are proposed to be soft forked in by the way?

According to this document, BIP 118 describes the new flag that is needed for eltoo to work. The NOINPUT flag applies to every segwit signature verification opcode; OP_CHECKSIG, OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY, OP_CHECKMULTISIG, OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY.

[Jedabucol]

There seems to be a chicken and egg problem with lightning. When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?
Also writing that previous sentence made me wonder, for that matter, what is the correct terminology for these things? If we are just going to call them bitcoins like there is no distinction between the bitcoins on the main net and these frequently renegotiated contractual obligations on the lightning network? Is that reasonable? When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?
Everything is settled down once someone decides to close the channel. The biggest issue right now is that channel limits how much you can spend. Split payments are a planned feature.

[Anon136]

When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?

When you open a channel you are essentially giving your money to someone else while making certain arrangements that ensure that they can't spend it themselves without your permission (think of it like a wad of cash that you hand to someone else with a string attached that you can yank if you see them doing anything fishy ). Next what you can do is renegotiate the arrangement so that you can now only take back part of it and not all of it. This renegotiation where you went from being able to take back all of it to now only being able to take part of it is what we refer to as a lightning transaction. So you see what is missing from your equation is that the other party has not made a similar but opposite arrangement with you. They have not given you money that they could take back at any time. They could have though, if they wanted to, and if they had than you would have had no problem in receiving without spending down first.

[Wind_FURY]

When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?

When you open a channel you are essentially giving your money to someone else while making certain arrangements that ensure that they can't spend it themselves without your permission (think of it like a wad of cash that you hand to someone else with a string attached that you can yank if you see them doing anything fishy ).

No, not it is not "giving away your money" to someone else. It is more like sending your money for safe keeping in a multisig address that you can get anytime you want. "Giving away" implies you already "lost" control over your money, but what stops it is the "rules".

Next what you can renegotiate the arrangements so that you can now only take back part of it and not all of it. This renegotiation where you went from being able to take back all of it to now only being able to take part of it is what we refer to as a lightning transaction. So you see what is missing from your equation is that the other party has not made a similar but opposite arrangement with you. They have not given you money that they could take back at any time. They could have though, if they wanted to, and if they had than you would have had no problem in receiving without spending down first.

Let's make it simple. "You can spend only up to what you, or what the person in the other end, put in a channel".