Flaws in LN (Lightning Network).

[DooMAD]

you already know that the 2mb legacy with segwit was just a ploy. by the same group that just wanted segwitx1

WHAT?  No, I don't "know" that.  And neither do you.  It's just another one of those things you like to repeat over and over again, hoping that some gullible idiots will believe your absurd conspiracy theories and total re-writes of history.  Total conjecture.  Just for once in your dismal existence try being reasonable and rational.

but letting bitcoins network expand in a efficient byte for byte transaction for transaction is not their roadmap.
because who would want LN if bitcoin could handle the transaction flow for 2015-2020

Anyone who wants to see atomic swaps implemented via LN?  Anyone who wouldn't want to risk centralising layer 0 if tx volumes increase, thus making it more costly to run full nodes?  Anyone who is trying to ensure we can go well beyond 2020?  In short, lots of people with foresight (which naturally excludes you).

its why they had to do a hard fork mascaraed as a UASF and then point fingers at another group as the instigators..

Who are "they"?  No one has enough individual control over Bitcoin's network to "do a hard fork" (*facepalm*) and make everyone else on the network like it.  What world are you even living in?  I can't tell if you need to take far more or far less medication for whatever it is that's wrong with you.  Stop pretending developers have so much control they can force miners and users to fork against their will.  It's total lunacy and you are unhinged if you believe that.  I think we're all running out of patience with you now and have had quite enough of your paranoid fantasies and delusions.  Use facts, not franky1 la-la-land fairytales and campfire stories.  

[1714119423]

1714119423

[1714119423]

1714119423

[1714119423]

1714119423

[HeRetiK]

anyway back to talking about the flaws. and hopefully no more insulting social distraction attempts.

And... that's it. What else has been reported so far?

look into the opcodes. they even want to rename an opcode to make it visibly shown its a risk(hint. its a risk for one and secondly reintroduces malleability)
look into why factories/watchtowers are being conceived
look into why having just a couple channels aint enough for full random pay anyone
look into how the byzantine generals issue applies
look into the 6degree of kevin bacon plays out
look into the funds of channels and the % of operability the more 'kevin bacons' are involved
the list goes on

A little more concreteness would be appreciated.

Obviously not every argument can be broken down easily, but for example which opcode are you referring to specifically?

Also how does the Byzantine General's problem even apply to LN payment channels? What I've learned so far is:

What's the point in treating any 2 player game through the lens of the Byzantine General's problem though?

Because it just exists (and moreover, the whole blockchain\crypto-blabla stuff is built around it).

...which wasn't very helpful, and...

What does treating counterparty-pairs like singular market participants have to do with how a pair of market participants negotiate a channelstate between themselves? We're still talking about solving a 1:1 game. The above sounds like breaking down the Byzantine General's problem into a bunch of Byzantine dudes with inner conflict caused by multiple personality disorder.

It is a reductionist approach to monetary systems which is radically different than bitcoin that uses Byzantine Generals problem/PoW based consensus for modeling/managing them. The question would be: Does it deserve to be considered a legitimate approach comparably useful as bitcoin?

...which seems to support my conclusion that LN is approaching monetary transactions from a different problem space which may be modelled in other terms than the Byzantine General's problem.


So what's your take on this? What's the relevancy of the Byzantine General's problem on how two counterparties manage the state of their payment channel?


Also initially I was actually more wondering about concrete examples of this:

many have already lost funds/gained funds.. not lost or gained but reported the ability to do so.
maybe now that you have suddenly been motivated by a chance of free money. you might put a critical hat on and try LN and play with it with the attempt to see the flaws.

[franky1]

hre we go again. distracting the conversation again away from LN flaws.....

That's not a "solution".  Try again.  If the Bitcoin network couldn't find consensus for 2MB legacy with SegWit, what makes you think people will jump at the chance to have 4MB legacy with SegWit?  Maybe try saying "learn consensus" without a hint of irony a few more times just to make everyone laugh a little bit harder.

you already know that the 2mb legacy with segwit was just a ploy. by the same group that just wanted segwitx1

WHAT?  No, I don't "know" that.  

then go back and learn about the NYA

Anyone who wouldn't want to risk centralising layer 0

here you go again treating lightning as a feature of bitcoin and part of the bitcoin network...
by talking about
"layers" (facepalm)
with so many calling lightning layer 2 is the same crap as years ago when people called NXT bitcoin 2.0

LN is not a layer
LN is separate network. ("chainhash"is asking for any chain of coins. its not locked to monitor bitcoin.)
EG. what if i said ripple was bitcoins layer 2.. i bet you would scream that it aint.

its why they had to do a hard fork mascaraed as a UASF and then point fingers at another group as the instigators..

Who are "they"?  No one has enough individual control over Bitcoin's network to "do a hard fork" (*facepalm*) and make everyone else on the network like it.  

you think people have to like the rules for things like mandated activation and node bans and block reject threats to push an agenda..... (facepalm)
sorry but nope. 2017 ploy was not to like the rules but you give no other choice but accept it or to go "f**k off to another network"

i know i know.. i expect the usual reply social drama narrative that "blah blah it was bitcoin cash that forked"..
but no thats is you rewriting history. you might want to check the blockchains. it was segwit that initiated a change first.. and enforced the node ban and block reject protocol. cash wasnt created until hours later.

and here is the reason i want you to actually go learn things. because i am not your mom that should spoon feed you.
you dont want to listen anyway and you dont even care what is being said. so the only way you will learn and accept things is if you actually go use them and learn for yourself.

again i get it you dont want me telling you things. so why keep asking just to then stick your head in the sand and shout insults.. maybe try using the things your questioning and learn first hand if you hate second hand input so much

anyway this topic just shows alot of the usual suspects wanting a social drama session.

now those that do want to know the flaws can go use LN and experience them themselves.. i would say read code. but many treat that as me attacking them

so until those that want to reply about LN flaws have actually used LN.. you might want to try using LN first so that you can atleast start to understand conversations about LN.. unlike some who just prefer to cause social drama, but just hitting reply to just argue and insult and not address LN issues

[franky1]

So what's your take on this? What's the relevancy of the Byzantine General's problem on how two counterparties manage the state of their payment channel?

to explain it all involves the whole big 3 decade debate of decentralised money and how the whole 2009 blockchain solution called bitcoin became such a big hit as it solves the problem of decentralised money.

after all if 2 party channels could work where people could leave LN nodes open indefinitely and use factories to recycle funds all off chain to take funds out of channels at close and put in new channels without broadcasting back to a blockchain... then blockchains are never needed.. which brings back the 3 decade debate about the whole point of blockchains. and if satoshis revolution was ever needed..

seems a few think that once inside LN its utopia. and blockchains were never needed and never will be needed again as factories(larger mutlisigs) are the solution satoshi should have come up with in 2008-9

its like the oldest and longest debate of all in regards to digital distributed/decentralised money
(requires long explanation.)

. but knowing theres a few people here who just ignore the content. and just here to insult and put finger in ears.. its probably best most people take the subtle hints and DYOR(do own research) and play around with LN (even on testnet) as they wont be happy being told the issues by people that are not in their circle of friends

[DevilOper]

Here are some checkboxes representing the previous and current commitment state.  Both A and B have revoked payments from N-1.  If either party attempted to spend from N-1, the other party could penalise them because B has A's key for N-1 and A has B's key for N-1.  If either party close the channel and broadcast to the blockchain, there is no penalty involved and N is the commitment state which gets broadcast:

N-1)	A: ☒  B: ☒
N)	A: ☑  B: ☑

OK, no magic, then how do they have it? I do not see any other then magical way to get it from nowhere.
Otherwise, I see only two ways:
1) One can 'guess' this key. So what prevent him from guessing it and taking all coins at any moment?
2) One should send his key to another. -> classical Byzantine Generals' Problem.

If B accepts N+1, they will give A their key for N.  A will also give B their key for N.

But A of course is not going to give B their key.

[DooMAD]

One can 'guess' this key. So what prevent him from guessing it and taking all coins at any moment?

If you can successfully guess a key signature, you deserve every last satoshi you get.  
You've probably got more chance of winning the jackpot on two different national lotteries on the same night.

If B accepts N+1, they will give A their key for N.  A will also give B their key for N.

But A of course is not going to give B their key.

Then the transaction isn't finalised and N+1 doesn't exist.  N is still the current state and can't be revoked until A hands over their key for N.  Again, keep reading that post or find somewhere else that explains it in a way you can understand.

look into the opcodes. they even want to rename an opcode to make it visibly shown its a risk(hint. its a risk for one and secondly reintroduces malleability)

A little more concreteness would be appreciated.

Obviously not every argument can be broken down easily, but for example which opcode are you referring to specifically?

The only thing I can find is this discussion from 2015.  If that's what franky1 is soiling himself over, then I'm pretty sure the issue isn't quite the catastrophe he's making it out to be.  If that's not what he's alluding to then he needs to be more clear and link to whatever it is he likes to pretend we should be so alarmed about.  If he wasn't a troll, he simply would have provided the source of his claims rather than making such a big song and dance about it.  He's incapable of simply providing the technical details and then letting users decide for themselves how serious the risks are.  He can only weave tenuous and highly exaggerated narratives to portray things in the worst possible light.  Blatant scaremongering and FUD.  Every time you ask him for specifics, he just gives you more absurd conspiracy theories.  Not even remotely acceptable behaviour for someone with the 'Legendary' rank.

[DevilOper]

One can 'guess' this key. So what prevent him from guessing it and taking all coins at any moment?

If you can successfully guess a key signature, you deserve every last satoshi you get.  
You've probably got more chance of winning the jackpot on two different national lotteries on the same night.

I've put it exactly for you laugh.
But you missed the second point.

If B accepts N+1, they will give A their key for N.  A will also give B their key for N.

But A of course is not going to give B their key.

Then the transaction isn't finalised and N+1 doesn't exist.  N is still the current state and can't be revoked until A hands over their key for N.  Again, keep reading that post or find somewhere else that explains it in a way you can understand.

Again, who decides the state of the transaction?

A has the key from B. From A's point of view the transaction is commited.
(A even pretends to have his key sent to B. But unfortunately the packet has been dropped somwehre in the depth of Atlantic Ocean. Well, actually who knows where is his key now, who owns it... may be it's B, who's cheating now?)

[franky1]

...

The only thing I can find is.  If that's what franky1 is soiling himself over,

nope your not even close

i would give you a subtle hint but all i see is that you put noinput into critical issues. apart from insults.
so keep researching, keep learning. and when it dawns on you. then you can atleast be at peace that you found out about it without me, and maybe you will accept it

[HeRetiK]

The only thing I can find is this discussion from 2015.  If that's what franky1 is soiling himself over,

nope your not even close

i would give you a subtle hint but all i see is that you put noinput into critical issues. apart from insults.
so keep researching, keep learning. and when it dawns on you. then you can atleast be at peace that you found out about it without me, and maybe you will accept it

At this point I'd appreciate clear answers over subtle hints though.

I assume the part about receiving insults refer to DooMAD and not me, so I once again respectfully ask you to further illuminate your arguments. Merely vaguely referring to aspects where you are seeing potential for problems does not help the discussion. Quite the contrary, it only muddles any line of reasoning as there is no clear argument being made. There is no content to build the discourse upon.


So once again, do you have any concrete examples of these:

many have already lost funds/gained funds.. not lost or gained but reported the ability to do so.
maybe now that you have suddenly been motivated by a chance of free money. you might put a critical hat on and try LN and play with it with the attempt to see the flaws.

And what op_code do you believe could reintroduce malleability?


Those are very simple questions that will hopefully not require to roll up decades of discourse.

[aliashraf]

Also how does the Byzantine General's problem even apply to LN payment channels? What I've learned so far is:

What does treating counterparty-pairs like singular market participants have to do with how a pair of market participants negotiate a channelstate between themselves? We're still talking about solving a 1:1 game. The above sounds like breaking down the Byzantine General's problem into a bunch of Byzantine dudes with inner conflict caused by multiple personality disorder.

It is a reductionist approach to monetary systems which is radically different than bitcoin that uses Byzantine Generals problem/PoW based consensus for modeling/managing them. The question would be: Does it deserve to be considered a legitimate approach comparably useful as bitcoin?

...which seems to support my conclusion that LN is approaching monetary transactions from a different problem space which may be modelled in other terms than the Byzantine General's problem.

No, it doesn't support your conclusion by any means. Issuance and transferring money IS the problem space. Bitcoin successfully models it by Byzantine Generals problem and solves it by PoW and consensus but LN tries to approach the same problem space using a different model (reducing it to 1:1 handshaking across a route).

We need to understand and establish this point before proceeding anymore: LN is an alternative approach to the same problem that bitcoin is meant to approach, hence a competitor for bitcoin. It is true for any off-chain scaling solution, otherwise how should it help off-loading anything from bitcoin blockchain?

Is it feasible for any off-chain solution to compete with bitcoin and its huge mathematical support, without a established mathematical model ? I doubt it.

As of now, I have to reject the feasibility of any off-chain solution for offering the same quality of service (at least) that bitcoin provides in terms of privacy and censorship resistance besides performing an order of magnitude better, until somebody could present me by a solid model comparable to Byzantine Generals.

[DooMAD]

If someone knew of a serious risk to Bitcoin's network which they believed was genuine, but then deliberately withheld that information from other members of the community so that they could analyse the risks for themselves, you'd have to ask yourself if they really did care about Bitcoin as much as they say they do.    

Good news, though, pretty much all the people who believe this opcode is an issue are totally discredited.  

I see why franky1 won't provide a source now for his claims now.  I also see why I didn't find this "issue" while searching, because I deliberately ignore search results from the following sources.  If franky1 had posted a source, he would have to end up quoting something written by anonymint (another prolific troll who wouldn't shut up about ANYONECANSPEND right up to the point they got banned from the forum), something written by Craig "fake satoshi" Wright (no explanation required for that one), something written on bitcoin.com (definitely no credibility there), or he would have to link to something legitimate that I would pay attention to, which completely debunks the supposed risks of ANYONECANSPEND.

Or... he'd have to link to this quote, which is rather telling and explains SO, SO MUCH about his behaviour:

Well, if that is a critical issue i advice you to make contact with Core/LightCoin dev's about youre concern. They're testing it atm, this will be the moment for it to how to fix it. We'll be gratefull.

i did..
EG last april i spotted the anyonecanspend issue..
their response.
ridicule me for months..

Is this the point someone hurt your feelings and prompted your little vendetta, franky1?  You've been carrying this little grievance of yours since April 2016?  Ever since then you've been taking shots at developers because they don't take you seriously?  Aww, diddums.  

I honestly never knew a human being could actually be this pathetic.

[franky1]

Good news, though, pretty much all the people who believe this opcode is an issue are totally discredited.  

1. the opcode. the devs already know about it. its no secret. but you seem to not know. although many hints were given for you to DYOR

2. the anyonecanspend (separate issue) the devs found the work around. once it finally twigged on them that it was an issue,
again the hints are there its no secret infact the work around become highly visable.. if you knew.

but it seems your not getting the hints.
you dont want me to spoon feed you.. i get that
you want to ignore me.. fine hit that ignore button.
 or atleast DYOR
i know you dont like people telling you to learn
but if you are so adamant to not want to get information from me. then im not going to spoon feed it to you.(bite the hand that feeds you. you stop getting fed) leaving the only option as for you to DYOR

ill just leave it for others who can see the hints to do their research and become aware.
i tried being nice, i even tried to be subtle. but this has just got to a point where all you wanna do is sling mud.

as for the opcode.. well the devs do know of that issue. its no secret. but you have already been given enough hint to DYOR and i have asked you to DYOR but you just wanna sling mud. so no more hints for you

so go have a nice day.

[cellard]

The problem with LN haters is that they always shit on everything devs do, but don't bring up any solutions to the table,

actually i and others have given solutions to problems. even solutions to segwit too.
 but those that see me bringing up flaws or see me offering solutions dont think about the flaw/solution. they just see the hate and then dramatise it into a finger pointing game of social distraction to meander the content away from talking about the flaw..

yea i know. you core positive PR guys that poke the bear. and then quoting when the bear bites, that the bear bit.. is just your ploy. more wasted time talking about social distractions

anyway.
LN is a separate network with flaws. now if anyone cares about bitcoin. start concentrating on bitcoin. not advertising core devs and their features that are made to make investment returns.

we are just waiting time with other networks and social distractions. and less time getting devs to innovate the bitcoin network.
LN wont be ready any time soon. so no need to promote it. put your wasting time to actually trying to innovate the bitcoin network.

You claim that you have solutions to bitcoin scaling (which are none of what I pointed to, including delusional hopes of having a schelude in which we magically reach consensus to hardfork into bigger blocksizes without ending up in a split with 2 surviving coins and a lot of drama)

Can you please point to your code which is better than anything Core or altcoins have to offer? (because we are talking about scaling bitcoin, not starting from scratch, only to end up in the same point)

[franky1]

You claim that you have solutions to bitcoin scaling (which are none of what I pointed to, including delusional hopes of having a schelude in which we magically reach consensus to hardfork into bigger blocksizes without ending up in a split with 2 surviving coins and a lot of drama)

Can you please point to your code which is better than anything Core or altcoins have to offer? (because we are talking about scaling bitcoin, not starting from scratch, only to end up in the same point)

i know you only replied to poke the bear into another off topic social drama discussion about something not related to LN flaws

ill bite.. but remember you, like others are the ones that love to distract the narrative. so dont cry after

firstly. in consensus. things only should upgrade when the network has consensus. (no altcoin creation)
secondly the only reason you think things end in coin splits of altcoins is because you have only seen cores bypasses of consensus but fell for their PR.

the only reason why we didnt have it happen in 2015 as consensus is because core devs refused,
then pretended to agree then backtracked, then got a few of their devs and buddies to fake an alternative choice just to get those who were not blindly following cores roadmap off the network. and they got their investors to make a NYA plan to PR a possible chance of onchain scaling but only under terms of activating cores roadmap first, to the back peddle that NYA plan too...

by the way you can flip flop and spin all the social drama you like. but there are actual lines of code and block data, and stats that show the real series of events. so no point playing the social drama PR game to defend cores actions.

as for is there any code thats not core adoration/following.. well there would be if it wasnt for the REKT/mandatory campaigns over the last 3-5 years

anyway,
im finding it funny the same few names pop up trying their dang hardest to defend a WHO(core devs) instead of a what (bitcoin innovation). even as going as far as defending those devs OTHER NETWORK stuff.

[Wind_FURY]

You claim that you have solutions to bitcoin scaling (which are none of what I pointed to, including delusional hopes of having a schelude in which we magically reach consensus to hardfork into bigger blocksizes without ending up in a split with 2 surviving coins and a lot of drama)

Can you please point to your code which is better than anything Core or altcoins have to offer? (because we are talking about scaling bitcoin, not starting from scratch, only to end up in the same point)

i know you only replied to poke the bear into another off topic social drama discussion about something not related to LN flaws

ill bite.. but remember you, like others are the ones that love to distract the narrative. so dont cry after

firstly. in consensus. things only should upgrade when the network has consensus. (no altcoin creation)
secondly the only reason you think things end in coin splits of altcoins is because you have only seen cores bypasses of consensus but fell for their PR.

the only reason why we didnt have it happen in 2015 as consensus is because core devs refused,
then pretended to agree then backtracked, then got a few of their devs and buddies to fake an alternative choice just to get those who were not blindly following cores roadmap off the network. and they got their investors to make a NYA plan to PR a possible chance of onchain scaling but only under terms of activating cores roadmap first, to the back peddle that NYA plan too...

You are trying too hard to make the Core developers look like the Bilderberg group. Hahaha.

Plus no one in the community wanted the NYA except for a minority of Bitcoin merchants, miners, and their shills. It was dead the day they signed the agreement.

[Zin-Zang]

Also make me aware of some more flaws you're aware of LN.

IMO,  

LN Flaws (which others call features.)

Time Locking Required /Excessive time delay before Final transaction confirmed (Payout on the actual blockchain)
Overly Complicated to the point , Normal People will always require 3rd parties to monitor and maintain channels  (IE: Centralized Banking Cartels)
Price for LN offchain transactions (Promissory Notes) will still cost more than using many Altcoin's onchain networks.

LN is acting as a Bank by offering notes redeemable in bitcoin or litecoin,
at some point at minimum all LN Hubs will have to register as money transmitters or at worse be required to hold a banking license,  (Major Flaw)  

 

[lightningslotmachine]

Time Locking Required /Excessive time delay before Final transaction confirmed (Payout on the actual blockchain)

Lightning transactions are instant, you can do more transactions per second in one channel than most other blockchain can handle in total.

Overly Complicated to the point , Normal People will always require 3rd parties to monitor and maintain channels  (IE: Centralized Banking Cartels)

The Internet is much more complicated, but see, you are using it! A car engine is complicated, but one can still drive one right?! This is a bad argument, we are able to make user friendly wallets and software that will enable your grandmother to use lightning. In time.

Price for LN offchain transactions (Promissory Notes) will still cost more than using many Altcoin's onchain networks.

Price to get a bitcoin transaction confirmed within 10 minutes cost a few cents yes, but you don't need to have it confirmed quickly when you create channels in the background. Segwit and batching transactions has also shown that bitcoin will overcome bottlenecks.

LN is acting as a Bank by offering notes redeemable in bitcoin or litecoin,
at some point at minimum all LN Hubs will have to register as money transmitters or at worse be required to hold a banking license,  (Major Flaw) 

This is just some weird conspiracy theories. Not even going to comment on this.

[Wind_FURY]

Also make me aware of some more flaws you're aware of LN.

IMO,  

LN Flaws (which others call features.)

Time Locking Required /Excessive time delay before Final transaction confirmed (Payout on the actual blockchain)
Overly Complicated to the point , Normal People will always require 3rd parties to monitor and maintain channels  (IE: Centralized Banking Cartels)
Price for LN offchain transactions (Promissory Notes) will still cost more than using many Altcoin's onchain networks.

But the evidence today is showing that LN fees are very cheap. Cheaper than Bitcoin Cash.

Plus while Bitcoin Cash nodes become more and more centralized, Bitcoin will always be scaling out.

LN is acting as a Bank by offering notes redeemable in bitcoin or litecoin,
at some point at minimum all LN Hubs will have to register as money transmitters or at worse be required to hold a banking license,  (Major Flaw)  

This is gaslighting at best. LN is software that anyone can use without permission for decentralized off-chain, peer to peer transactions. It is not a bank, it does not work like a bank, and will never act like a bank.

Have you reported the Lightning developers to the FBI? Hahahaha.

[lightningslotmachine]

But the evidence today is showing that LN fees are very cheap.

Cheap? I run the site https://www.lightningslotmachine.com/, most transactions, maybe 75%. Both sending and receiving payments have 0 satoshi as a fee.

A lot have 1 satoshi as a fee. The most I have ever seen is 8 satoshi. That's 0.0005152159 USD

I think is fair to say that Bitcoin is now the blockchain with the lowest fees.

[Zin-Zang]

Time Locking Required /Excessive time delay before Final transaction confirmed (Payout on the actual blockchain)

Lightning transactions are instant, you can do more transactions per second in one channel than most other blockchain can handle in total.

Reread before you comment in error again.
Final Transaction is onchain, and that can be up to 2 weeks using LN.  

Overly Complicated to the point , Normal People will always require 3rd parties to monitor and maintain channels  (IE: Centralized Banking Cartels)

The Internet is much more complicated, but see, you are using it! A car engine is complicated, but one can still drive one right?! This is a bad argument, we are able to make user friendly wallets and software that will enable your grandmother to use lightning. In time.

Those user friendly options are the ones that will be maintained by 3rd parties.
How many Linux Nodes does your Grandma currently run.  LOL!!  

@Wind_FURY
LN Fees are currently cheap because many hub operators are operating at a LOSS.
Dummies can only give away things for free for so long until they have to raise the price.  

I see your vocabulary now includes gaslighting,
the fact you confuse it with anything I say , shows you have a long way to go before you truly understand economics or logic.
Good Luck in your personal growth.  

But the evidence today is showing that LN fees are very cheap.

Cheap? I run the site https://www.lightningslotmachine.com/, most transactions, maybe 75%. Both sending and receiving payments have 0 satoshi as a fee.

A lot have 1 satoshi as a fee. The most I have ever seen is 8 satoshi. That's 0.0005152159 USD

I think is fair to say that Bitcoin is now the blockchain with the lowest fees.

LOL,

Nope many alts have cheaper transaction fees.

IE:
Zeitcoin Transaction fee is   $0.0000025  US
Mintcoin Transaction fee is  $0.0000129   US

* Also coin network only charge the single transaction fee,
LN network will charge a transaction fee per every hub required to send funds,
meaning you could pay 4X your LN fee per transaction as 4 hubs might be needed to complete it. *

Multiple other altcoins have fees lower than LN's 0.0005152159 USD
All one has to do is look.  

FYI:
LN Fees will increase when hub operators decide to stop taking losses and actually make a profit.
So current fees will increase as time goes on and dramatically if LN ever becomes popular.