The Lightning Network FAQ

[HeRetiK]

Lightning routing node operators can charge higher fees for that, and incetivize others to run their own nodes.

Unless I missed something you can't charge fees for incoming channels so you also can't charge higher fees for that use case. You could charge higher fees in general, but I don't think you get to set different fees depending on which channel the balance comes from.

Though I guess it you could write a script that automatically increases your fees for a short while whenever a new channel is opened? Not sure what that would do to your routing reliability though.

[Rath_]

Unless I missed something you can't charge fees for incoming channels so you also can't charge higher fees for that use case. You could charge higher fees in general, but I don't think you get to set different fees depending on which channel the balance comes from.

That's correct.

Though I guess it you could write a script that automatically increases your fees for a short while whenever a new channel is opened? Not sure what that would do to your routing reliability though.

You could do that but what's the point? The opener could just wait until you drop the fees down again. You would very likely not route any payments in the meantime.

[Rath_]

If anyone here is running LND v0.14.0, you should update your node. Otherwise, you won't be able to open channels with nodes running the latest version of c-lightning and eclair.

[Wind_FURY]

Lightning routing node operators can charge higher fees for that, and incetivize others to run their own nodes.

Unless I missed something you can't charge fees for incoming channels so you also can't charge higher fees for that use case. You could charge higher fees in general, but I don't think you get to set different fees depending on which channel the balance comes from.

But Lightning nodes charge fees if transactions are routed through them right? Then if there are high enough entities who are holding UTXOs they don’t like, demand will rise and therefore fees will rise. Unwanted UTXOs can merely be routed through Lightning, and leave those unwanted UTXOs with the routing node.

Observers would call this mixing, I believe it is increasing the anon-set.

[n0nce]

But Lightning nodes charge fees if transactions are routed through them right? Then if there are high enough entities who are holding UTXOs they don’t like, demand will rise and therefore fees will rise. Unwanted UTXOs can merely be routed through Lightning, and leave those unwanted UTXOs with the routing node.

That's not how Lightning works. LN doesn't route UTXO's, that's not how it operates. It is a network of peer-to-peer payment channels. You pay off-chain directly to a peer, but you can also pay an intermediary which then pays the destination. If they don't forward the payment, it's not like 'held in custody', instead you get a route fail error and your node tries a different intermediary until it finds one which works. Worst case, the payment fails and you get your money back (in fact, it never left your wallet until destination is reached).

[HeRetiK]

But Lightning nodes charge fees if transactions are routed through them right? Then if there are high enough entities who are holding UTXOs they don’t like, demand will rise and therefore fees will rise. Unwanted UTXOs can merely be routed through Lightning, and leave those unwanted UTXOs with the routing node.

Observers would call this mixing, I believe it is increasing the anon-set.

Yes, Lightning Network is likely going to increase the anon-set and thus help with Bitcoin's fungibility. I'm not sure if it would be a good thing though if LN became just one big decentralized tumbler. Not that I really see this happening.

LN's fee market is an interesting one. Rising demand causing individual fees to rise would actually be a bad thing and is hopefully not what we end up with. Ideally, you don't want fees to rise, but rather transaction throughput to increase by having balances flow in both directions of a channel rather than just one. This way individual fees per transaction stay low while node operator profit increases. Whether that's attainable remains to be seen. I do believe it's possible though, as there's an incentive for node operators to learn how to manage their channels most effectively.

That's not how Lightning works. LN doesn't route UTXO's, that's not how it operates. It is a network of peer-to-peer payment channels. You pay off-chain directly to a peer, but you can also pay an intermediary which then pays the destination. If they don't forward the payment, it's not like 'held in custody', instead you get a route fail error and your node tries a different intermediary until it finds one which works. Worst case, the payment fails and you get your money back (in fact, it never left your wallet until destination is reached).

I think what Wind_FURY is referring to is the funds you are left with once the anonymous node closes the channel after pushing their coins through your node. That on-chain settlement transaction will leave you, as an entry node, with the coins that the anonymous node wanted to get rid of.

[darkv0rt3x]

Hi...

I would like to kind of introduce a recent system that is yet giving its first steps towards adoption that can help improving the network and general node "quality". This is not my work, it's from a friend that collaborates actively to the C-Lightning implementation of LN. You can reach him via Github (https://github.com/vincenzopalazzo) and Twitter (@PalazzoVincenzo).

This is a system that intends to collect some data from nodes (nodes actually send the data), analyse it and provide a rating for a given node.

The metrics collected are yet small and short, such as uptime, payments statuses. The project is mostly written in Go lang and it's open source and open to submissions and new metrics.

I wanted to help to make this project known, so I am posting this thread.

There are some useful links with some reading to get us introduced with the system:

Medium blog post
https://vincenzopalazzo.medium.com/introduction-to-ln-open-metrics-96a7c859f4e2

Project Github repo
https://github.com/LNOpenMetrics


Project reference on github
https://github.com/LNOpenMetrics/lnmetrics.rfc/

Contributing with a new metric
https://github.com/LNOpenMetrics/lnmetrics.rfc#how-propose-a-new-metric

Hope this helps to spread the word and help the LN to grow bigger, better and healthier.

[cygan]

Today we're excited to announce that we're bringing Lightning Terminal to the web, providing a simple web UI for node operators to improve the quality and liquidity of their node. The goal of this new release is to make running a Lightning node simpler, easier, and more accessible, lowering the barrier to instant, high volume, low fee bitcoin transactions for all. With this launch, we're taking a major step toward managing a Lightning node in a secure, private, and non-custodial manner by enabling a web-based experience to easily monitor, manage, and measure nodes.

https://lightning.engineering/posts/2021-11-30-lightning-terminal/
https://terminal.lightning.engineering/#/

already can't wait to be able to run my own lightning node

[Rath_]

-snip

I played around with Lightning Terminal when I was running LND and hardly any rebalancing attempts were successful. LOOP handles off-chain payments. Most of their peers charge well over 2000 ppm which is a lot compared to other nodes.

2000 ppm means that you would pay 1000 satoshi + base fee for a 500 000 satoshi payment.

[HeRetiK]

already can't wait to be able to run my own lightning node

Running a lightning node is a great learning experience, at least it is for me. There's a huge gap between the theoretical knowledge of how the systems should work vs all the nitty gritty details you only notice once you're in the trenches.

I played around with Lightning Terminal when I was running LND and hardly any rebalancing attempts were successful. LOOP handles off-chain payments. Most of their peers charge well over 2000 ppm which is a lot compared to other nodes.

2000 ppm means that you would pay 1000 satoshi + base fee for a 500 000 satoshi payment.

I feel like liquidity sinks are a bit of a weak point in the system. They seem to be impossible to balance so most nodes will have to set fees prohibitively high as to get back their on-chain fees and then some. Unless, of course, you run big channels like this guy:
https://amboss.space/node/03aa49c1e98ff4f216d886c09da9961c516aca22812c108af1b187896ded89807e

It's quite interesting to see the economics at play. Finding the right fees to set and peers to connect feels a bit like a puzzle.

[Wind_FURY]

But Lightning nodes charge fees if transactions are routed through them right? Then if there are high enough entities who are holding UTXOs they don’t like, demand will rise and therefore fees will rise. Unwanted UTXOs can merely be routed through Lightning, and leave those unwanted UTXOs with the routing node.

Observers would call this mixing, I believe it is increasing the anon-set.

Yes, Lightning Network is likely going to increase the anon-set and thus help with Bitcoin's fungibility. I'm not sure if it would be a good thing though if LN became just one big decentralized tumbler. Not that I really see this happening.

If it would incentivize Lightning node operators to increase liquidity in their channels, then I believe it’s going to be a net-positive.

Lightning simply for payments is currently not happening, everyone prefers to use onchain. But it will happen for something else, another form of utility for users.

[n0nce]

Lightning simply for payments is currently not happening

everyone prefers to use onchain. But it will happen for something else, another form of utility for users.

Do you have anything to back these statements? Arguments and / or sources?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Lightning simply for payments is currently not happening, everyone prefers to use onchain. But it will happen for something else, another form of utility for users.

As part of everyone, I confess that it's been a long time since I made an on-chain transaction for purchasing something. I only purchase lightning-ly. So, I question your statement. I'd actually say that lots are already using the lightning network for payments, even if it doesn't cost that much to pay on-chain. It's cheaper, faster and more convenient.

[LoyceV]

As part of everyone, I confess that it's been a long time since I made an on-chain transaction for purchasing something. I only purchase lightning-ly.

I'll join the line, I too prefer LN. Even though on-chain fees aren't that high, I've had more disappointments^* paying merchants on-chain than with LN.

^* Things like additional charges for consolidation fees, time-outs because of slow confirmation leading to a refund, demanding a certain minimum fee and still not giving me an instant order, address reuse, etc. etc.
LN has it's downsides too though, especially if the payment doesn't instantly go through and I have to wait for a timeout.

[Rath_]

I also have been using the Lightning Network exclusively for quite some time now. I saved a ton of money on fees by using it to pay Bitrefill, which I frequently use.

LN has it's downsides too though, especially if the payment doesn't instantly go through and I have to wait for a timeout.

LND and c-lightning users can specify the timeout if they want to. Both implementations default to 60 seconds.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I want to get rid of LND completely from my RPi 4 and I was wondering, what's the best way to do it? I actually just want to downgrade it to 0.12 or anything different rather than the newest 0.13.1 beta version I'm using, but I guess that's not possible without uninstalling it.

[Rath_]

I want to get rid of LND completely from my RPi 4 and I was wondering, what's the best way to do it? I actually just want to downgrade it to 0.12 or anything different rather than the newest 0.13.1 beta version I'm using, but I guess that's not possible without uninstalling it.

You should be careful when downgrading because there might have been significant changes to the database structure between major releases. It looks like there was a small change in the v0.13.0-beta. Is there any particular reason why you want to downgrade your node?

[n0nce]

I want to get rid of LND completely from my RPi 4 and I was wondering, what's the best way to do it? I actually just want to downgrade it to 0.12 or anything different rather than the newest 0.13.1 beta version I'm using, but I guess that's not possible without uninstalling it.

You could close all channels, delete or inactivate the service and that's it.

Looking at the code, it seems it's installed via go install -v and since I'm not a go developer, I don't know where it copies files to and such. (I assume you built from source - uninstalling e.g. the docker version may be easier)

However, these install guides have you install and configure many things, like getting packages that you won't need anymore after switching to c-lightning, such as go itself. That's why me personally, I'd reinstall the node. Backup the blockchain, wipe the drive, and start off clean, then put back the blockchain and Core will find it again; lastly install C-Lightning and you're good


Has anyone tried https://paywithmoon.com/ yet? Any experiences?

[BlackHatCoiner]

You should be careful when downgrading because there might have been significant changes to the database structure between major releases. It looks like there was a small change in the v0.13.0-beta. Is there any particular reason why you want to downgrade your node?

Yes. Because of those changes. I'm facing the same issue this guy does: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/5325. No answers so far, so I guess I'll downgrade and it'll work fine as he says.

However, these install guides have you install and configure many things, like getting packages that you won't need anymore after switching to c-lightning, such as go itself. That's why me personally, I'd reinstall the node. Backup the blockchain, wipe the drive, and start off clean, then put back the blockchain and Core will find it again; lastly install C-Lightning and you're good

Is there any specific reason you recommend me c-lightning? Is it possibly simpler than LND? I'm a person who has not much free time these days and wants to experience with the lightning network whenever he finds some. I'd definitely want the most suitable or easiest to use.

Also, if I want to use c-lightning, why do I have to uninstall LND?

Has anyone tried https://paywithmoon.com/ yet? Any experiences?

Does that work only for US purchases?

[Wind_FURY]

Lightning simply for payments is currently not happening

everyone prefers to use onchain. But it will happen for something else, another form of utility for users.

Do you have anything to back these statements? Arguments and / or sources?

Nothing definite, but do we see the many people in the community stop using onchain payments, and start using the Lightning Network? Have we seen a surge in adoption of Lightning payments that’s noticeable? Have we seen exchanges start adopting Lightning, instead of listing more “faster” shitcoins?

Lightning simply for payments is currently not happening, everyone prefers to use onchain. But it will happen for something else, another form of utility for users.

As part of everyone, I confess that it's been a long time since I made an on-chain transaction for purchasing something. I only purchase lightning-ly. So, I question your statement. I'd actually say that lots are already using the lightning network for payments, even if it doesn't cost that much to pay on-chain. It's cheaper, faster and more convenient.

What services/merchants do you Lightning for, and how much of Lightning was used for those services/merchants compared to onchain payments and shitcoins?

Lightning will realize its utility, but I believe it might not only be for faster/cheaper payments.