Lightning network : what about receiving payments ?

[darosior]

Hi,

I've been "using" (quoted because it's more tweaking than real use) the Lightning network for about a year and I still have a question that I could not get answered to. Lightning network is a great mean of payments, but what about getting paid for the average user ? You need to get someone open and fund a channel with you but since you are just a random guy you won't convince anybody, or maybe just another random guy. If you want
, let's say, withdraw some funds from a website (a big, famous one) : this website has to fund a channel with you, which it won't do because it has a cost (some bitcoins locked, not talking about on-chain transactions fees), or with the guy that funded a channel with you, which it won't do for the same reasons.

If the Lightning network becomes more popular, how could be solved this problem (that the average user could just be the payer and not the payee) ? Would it lead to the fact that you would have to pay to get a well-connected node opening a channel with you ? Am I missing something ?

[1713942272]

1713942272

[1713942272]

1713942272

[1713942272]

1713942272

[AB de Royse777]

This wonders me too. I hope we will get some experts view in it. I think for the regular dudes they will need to deposit their btc to several channels depending on the merchant. For example: If you shop with ebay then you will have one with ebay and if you want to trade with amazon then you will need another one for amazon.

Lightening Network will surely save expensed for online Merchants.

[Carlton Banks]

let's say, withdraw some funds from a website (a big, famous one) : this website has to fund a channel with you, which it won't do

The clue is in the name (i.e. "network")

The website does not need to open a channel to send funds to it's users. All that's needed is a series of channels that are linked through more than one lightning node.


Website -> A -> B -> ... -> darosior


As long as A, B and all other nodes in between have enough money to fund the payment, then the payment route is viable and you receive your withdrawal.

[darosior]

let's say, withdraw some funds from a website (a big, famous one) : this website has to fund a channel with you, which it won't do

The clue is in the name (i.e. "network")

The website does not need to open a channel to send funds to it's users. All that's needed is a series of channels that are linked through more than one lightning node.


Website -> A -> B -> ... -> darosior


As long as A, B and all other nodes in between have enough money to fund the payment, then the payment route is viable and you receive your withdrawal.

If and only if B has funded a channel with me, but why would he ? That's my question. In my understanding since there is no incentive to fund a channel to someone, average people won't have well connected node opening channel with them and thus won't be able to receive payments.

[NeuroticFish]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the answer is for this case the use of 3rd party services.

OK, if you, John Doe, even if nobody knows you, if you will use frequently LN for sending and receiving payments, most probably you'll find somebody (a service) to open the channel with.

But if you won't, probably the online wallet services will also allow LN transactions. Of course, this means centralisation and lower security...

[Carlton Banks]

If and only if B has funded a channel with me

Nope.

You need a channel. Just one. That node needs to have at least 2 channels (1 with you,  1 more with someone else). That node needs to have at least 2 channels.... etc. Repeat until you have a complete route to who you're actually paying. It's a network.

[darosior]

If and only if B has funded a channel with me

Nope.

You need a channel. Just one. That node needs to have at least 2 channels (1 with you,  with someone else). That node needs to have at least 2 channels.... etc. Repeat until you have a complete route to who you're actually paying. It's a network.

You seem to don't understand what I'm saying, I understand what is a network thank you for the precision. Here is a practical exemple :
I have opened a channel with the well-connected node "1ML". Thanks to this well connected node I am able to play lightning-roulette since I can pay the underlying node. I won't be able to withdraw what I gained (If I ever gain ^^) because 1ML won't bother locking some bitcoins to fund a channel to me.

[Rath_]

I have opened a channel with the well-connected node "1ML". Thanks to this well connected node I am able to play lightning-roulette since I can pay the underlying node. I won't be able to withdraw what I gained (If I ever gain ^^) because 1ML won't bother locking some bitcoins to fund a channel to me.

There is no need for 1ML to open back a channel to you. Once you send your payment, the funds are moved on the 1ML's side. Then, 1ML moves coins in their other channel to the side of the next node which routes the payment (or just lightning-roulette in this case). If you request a withdrawal then the funds can take the same route assuming that 1ML didn't close their channel with lightning-roulette and has enough liquidity.

If you still don't get it, you can download Eclair Mobile Testnet for Android. Recently, they added support for receiving payments so you can test it out and see how it works.

[darosior]

I have opened a channel with the well-connected node "1ML". Thanks to this well connected node I am able to play lightning-roulette since I can pay the underlying node. I won't be able to withdraw what I gained (If I ever gain ^^) because 1ML won't bother locking some bitcoins to fund a channel to me.

There is no need for 1ML to open back a channel to you. Once you send your payment, the funds are moved on the 1ML's side. Then, 1ML moves coins in their other channel to the side of the next node which routes the payment (or just lightning-roulette in this case). If you request a withdrawal then the funds can take the same route assuming that 1ML didn't close their channel with lightning-roulette and has enough liquidity.

If you still don't get it, you can download Eclair Mobile Testnet for Android. Recently, they added support for receiving payments so you can test it out and see how it works.

Thank you for your response. I thought if 1ML doesn't fund the channel in the first place, the channel would stay a one-way one.

[Rath_]

Thank you for your response. I thought if 1ML doesn't fund the channel in the first place, the channel would stay a one-way one.

The Lightning Network consists only of bi-directional payment channels. The problem with receiving payments is that you can't receive if there is not enough space in your channel. Also, currently, only one party can fund a channel. Dual-funded channels are not available, yet.

[ajas]

You are completely right. You have to urge somebody to open a channel to you in order to receive funds in the first place.

There are a couple of nodes which officially (commercially) offer to open a channel to you, for instance:
https://www.bitrefill.com/thor-lightning-network-channels
https://lightningconductor.net/channels

If you send me your node pubkey (via PM?) I would open a channel to you as well.

[darosior]

Thank you for your response. I thought if 1ML doesn't fund the channel in the first place, the channel would stay a one-way one.

The Lightning Network consists only of bi-directional payment channels. The problem with receiving payments is that you can't receive if there is not enough space in your channel. Also, currently, only one party can fund a channel. Dual-funded channels are not available, yet.

Ok, so there is indeed a problem for receiving a payment for now, but it will be resolved with the use of dual-funded channels ?

You are completely right. You have to urge somebody to open a channel to you in order to receive funds in the first place.

There are a couple of nodes which officially (commercially) offer to open a channel to you, for instance:
https://www.bitrefill.com/thor-lightning-network-channels
https://lightningconductor.net/channels

If you send me your node pubkey (via PM?) I would open a channel to you as well.

Thank you for your links and your proposition, here is one of mines :

Code:

02a447fd201226f0bf6421c356f9d2117b0fb05ccc0858dd2b20589b9edb488f67@82.245.113.89:9735

[Carlton Banks]

You are completely right. You have to urge somebody to open a channel to you in order to receive funds in the first place.

Completely wrong, actually. Bi-directional channels. That means you can open a channel with 1 node, and receive payments with anyone else that's indirectly connected to that node.

Thank you for your response. I thought if 1ML doesn't fund the channel in the first place, the channel would stay a one-way one.

The Lightning Network consists only of bi-directional payment channels. The problem with receiving payments is that you can't receive if there is not enough space in your channel. Also, currently, only one party can fund a channel. Dual-funded channels are not available, yet.

Ok, so there is indeed a problem for receiving a payment for now, but it will be resolved with the use of dual-funded channels ?

No, you misunderstood.

The only issue is that some nodes (probably most of them still) have a max channel size (0.16777 BTC). But there's an option to ignore that limit too, as long as both nodes agree as a part of opening the channel to begin with.

Dual funding just allows a channel to be more balanced when it opens, nothing at all to do with receiving payments.

[ajas]

You are completely right. You have to urge somebody to open a channel to you in order to receive funds in the first place.

...

done !

...
Completely wrong, actually. Bi-directional channels. That means you can open a channel with 1 node, and receive payments with anyone else that's indirectly connected to that node.

Thank you for your response. I thought if 1ML doesn't fund the channel in the first place, the channel would stay a one-way one.

The Lightning Network consists only of bi-directional payment channels. The problem with receiving payments is that you can't receive if there is not enough space in your channel. Also, currently, only one party can fund a channel. Dual-funded channels are not available, yet.

Ok, so there is indeed a problem for receiving a payment for now, but it will be resolved with the use of dual-funded channels ?

No, you misunderstood.
The only issue is that some nodes (probably most of them still) have a max channel size (0.16777 BTC). But there's an option to ignore that limit too, as long as both nodes agree as a part of opening the channel to begin with.
Dual funding just allows a channel to be more balanced when it opens, nothing at all to do with receiving payments.

I do not agree:
Yes the channels are bi-directional but when you open a channel its filled up from your side at first.
If you want to receive btc through that channel you have to spent it first so that it can be filled again from the other side.

As far as I see there is some discussion to extend the protocol for dual-funded channels but i do not see a way to achieve that today.
You can open a channel with funds on the other side with LND using the option -push-amt:

  The channel will be initialized with local-amt satoshis local and push-amt
  satoshis for the remote node. Note that specifying push-amt means you give that
  amount to the remote node as part of the channel opening.

But in that case you fill the other side with btc from your own.

[Carlton Banks]

Yes the channels are bi-directional but when you open a channel its filled up from your side at first.

Easy solution: don't open a channel using the max amount.

[ajas]

Yes the channels are bi-directional but when you open a channel its filled up from your side at first.

Easy solution: don't open a channel using the max amount.

Sorry I do not understand.
Can you tell me the command line arguments for lncli in order to open a dual-funded channel ?

[Rath_]

Can you tell me the command line arguments for lncli in order to open a dual-funded channel ?

There is no such command because dual-funded channels haven't been introduced yet. Using -push-amt parameter results in being able to receive payments if the other party is connected to someone else, but that's pointless. Why would anyone do that only to gain liquidity?

[darosior]

Ok so it seems that I had a big misuderstanding of bi-directionnal channels, thank you all.

[Carlton Banks]

Ok so it seems that I had a big misuderstanding of bi-directionnal channels, thank you all.

We've discovered an issue though: it's possible to confuse "dual-funding" and "bi-directional". Maybe there's a different phrase that could be used to make them both more distinct. Perhaps "dual-funded" channels could be referred to as "balanced" channels, and "single funded" channels as "unbalanced"

also, people might get the idea that channels only flow one-way (as you did). Perhaps that can be made clearer somehow too.