The Lightning Network FAQ

[A.N.D.]

Is it possible that the Lightning network in the future will adversely affect the security of the Bitcoin network?
Since there is no commission for miners for transactions in this network.

[1714963220]

1714963220

[1714963220]

1714963220

[1714963220]

1714963220

[1714963220]

1714963220

[Rath_]

Since there is no commission for miners for transactions in this network.

I don't think anyone would pay a few thousand sats for a 1 sat transaction. While miners don't earn money on the Lighting Network transactions, they are paid for establishing and settling down the balance of Lightning Network channels.

Is it possible that the Lightning network in the future will adversely affect the security of the Bitcoin network?

The Lightning Network can't function without the blockchain. It won't replace on-chain transactions. It might decrease some of the load and encourage people to spend Bitcoin on small things since it won't cost a fortune.

[A.N.D.]

Since there is no commission for miners for transactions in this network.

I don't think anyone would pay a few thousand sats for a 1 sat transaction. While miners don't earn money on the Lighting Network transactions, they are paid for establishing and settling down the balance of Lightning Network channels.

Is it possible that the Lightning network in the future will adversely affect the security of the Bitcoin network?

The Lightning Network can't function without the blockchain. It won't replace on-chain transactions. It might decrease some of the load and encourage people to spend Bitcoin on small things since it won't cost a fortune.

But if the Lightning network in the future will be popular and time will prove its safety, then there are few who will want to pay a commission to the miner.

[Rath_]

But if the Lightning network in the future will be popular and time will prove its safety, then there are few who want to pay a commission to the miner.

I don't think so. While you have funds locked up in a channel, you have to either run a node or use a watchtower to make sure that your funds won't be stolen (assuming you spent some of your coins and don't use non-custodial wallet). Settling the balance at some point is unavoidable because of that and some other possible issues with the other party. Anyone willing to invest in Bitcoin long-term will still want to move their funds to some kind of cold storage. Miners are not going to stop earning on the fees anytime soon.

[Wind_FURY]

Since there is no commission for miners for transactions in this network.

I don't think anyone would pay a few thousand sats for a 1 sat transaction. While miners don't earn money on the Lighting Network transactions, they are paid for establishing and settling down the balance of Lightning Network channels.

Is it possible that the Lightning network in the future will adversely affect the security of the Bitcoin network?

The Lightning Network can't function without the blockchain. It won't replace on-chain transactions. It might decrease some of the load and encourage people to spend Bitcoin on small things since it won't cost a fortune.

But if the Lightning network in the future will be popular and time will prove its safety, then there are few who will want to pay a commission to the miner.

It's actually an open debate based on the assumption that Lightning/off-chain layers will be very popular. I believe Lightning will be its own niche like Bitcoin, the software experiment that "could fail".

Let's question/debate/argue/learn, BUT, let's also support the technologies to be free of the Central Bankers' grasp, through community and Bitcoin.

[Indacoin]

 BitCryptex, thank you for this job. Now I can refer to this topic many people who interested in how the Lightning Network work. God bless you!

[samuel-sd]

Hi,
I compiled clightning with '--enable-developer' option:

Code:

./configure --enable-developer
make

Could you tell me what files are different from the regular version? I'd like to replace them in the docker image to run a container with developer version.

[darosior]

Hi,
I compiled clightning with '--enable-developer' option:

Code:

./configure --enable-developer
make

Could you tell me what files are different from the regular version? I'd like to replace them in the docker image to run a container with developer version.

Hi,

The `enable-developer` flag customizes the produced binary. It will enable new RPCs and (very slightly) change some behaviour.

[samuel-sd]

The `enable-developer` flag customizes the produced binary. It will enable new RPCs and (very slightly) change some behaviour.

Thanks

Which one? lightningd?

There are many binaries are generated during the compilation process.

[darosior]

The `enable-developer` flag customizes the produced binary. It will enable new RPCs and (very slightly) change some behaviour.

Thanks

Which one? lightningd?

There are many binaries are generated during the compilation process.

Hmm all of them (and if not, most of them), actually I should have used plural here . Why are you interested in knowing exactly *which* binary will be modified ?

[samuel-sd]

Hmm all of them (and if not, most of them), actually I should have used plural here . Why are you interested in knowing exactly *which* binary will be modified ?

Because I am going to replace them in the docker image to make a docker container with the developer version.

UPD
I figured everything out.
I created a docker container with the developer version by changing this string in the Dockerfile

from this

Code:

RUN ./configure --prefix=/tmp/lightning_install --enable-static && make -j3 DEVELOPER=${DEVELOPER} && make install

to this

Code:

RUN ./configure --prefix=/tmp/lightning_install --enable-static --enable-developer && make -j3 DEVELOPER=${DEVELOPER} && make install

Thanks!

[USBitcoinServices.Com]

How many projects are using LN in their own blockchain and how often people/users are using this for their daily transactions? is there any way to see what's the growth it has per month?

[Wind_FURY]

How many projects are using LN in their own blockchain and how often people/users are using this for their daily transactions?

I know Decred has their own off-chain layer, like Lightning, but not Lightning.

is there any way to see what's the growth it has per month?

Try looking, https://1ml.com/statistics

There are other websites like, https://bitcoinvisuals.com

[samuel-sd]

Hi everybody,

I figured out how to create a docker container with a c-lightning node in it. Is there any way to manage the node from outside of the container? Does it have an API to be controlled remotely? I know, I can make a console connection to the container and use lightning-cli inside of it but that's inconvenient. I am thinking about a k8s system with multiple containers and I need a simple way to control and manage nodes. What would you recommend me?

[darosior]

Hi Samuel,

I figured out how to create a docker container with a c-lightning node in it.

Otherwise, there is a Dockerfile in the repo (one for the main architectures)..

Is there any way to manage the node from outside of the container? Does it have an API to be controlled remotely? I know, I can make a console connection to the container and use lightning-cli inside of it but that's inconvenient. I am thinking about a k8s system with multiple containers and I need a simple way to control and manage nodes. What would you recommend me?

You could mount the RPC socket on the host and send it commands using lightning-cli --socket-path. Otherwise iirc we can bind to a port which you could open on your docker instance.
The BTCPay team is using these Dockerfiles I talked about above, maybe you could checkout what they do (my guess is exposing the socket path ).

[DaveF]

Having an odd issue.
I have my lightning node setup at home, it's working fine no issues.
I setup another 100% new node at home (this might be important) and brought it to my office.
However, I cannot open a peer connection or a channel between my office node and my home node.
There are many peers / channels open to / from both of them to other locations by as far as they are concerned the other one does not exist.

Could this be because I did the initial sync at home and there is still something on one of them that thinks the other is local?
And if so where / what is it?

Yeah, I know open a issue on github but I figured I would ask here 1st.

Stay safe.

Thanks,
Dave

[LoyceV]

However, I cannot open a peer connection or a channel between my office node and my home node.

As a "generic guess": does it have anything to do with (lack of) port forwarding?

[DaveF]

However, I cannot open a peer connection or a channel between my office node and my home node.

As a "generic guess": does it have anything to do with (lack of) port forwarding?

No, as I said it they can talk to any other node on the planet. They will just not see each other.
The only thing I can think of is that for some reason they think they are still on the same network.
There is nothing in the logs that I can see that shows a problem. I just go to connect as a peer and it tells me that the other one is offline.

Stay safe.

-Dave

[Rath_]

1. How we can connect on LN? We both need to keep nodes open, or just one of us? If only one node is required, will it be me or him?

There are a few options. Both of you can run a Lightning Network node or one of you can run the node and use a custodial wallet or both of you can use the custodial wallet (i.e. BlueWallet) or you can use non-custodial wallets (lightweight clients) and so on.

2. I understand he would issue me a "invoice" every week and I would pay it each time using my LN wallet. So I don't need a node technically, he should have a node. Correct?

You don't need to run a node to be able to generate invoices and pay for them, but you do need a LN compatible wallet. Lightweight clients (i.e. Eclair Wallet) are full fledged Lightning Network nodes with some limited features, but most of them should now support receiving over the LN. Those clients are far easier to use, but give you less control over certain paramaters (i.e. channel closing transaction fee).

3. Can I have node open and pay to his LN wallet or something? So he don't need to have a node? How he would transfer Bitcoins back from LN to his normal SegWit wallet?

No, he either needs to run a node or use a lightweight client and needs to have an open channel either with you (no fees) or with some popular node (possible routing fees and routing failures if you are not connected to the same node). In your use case, the first option makes the most sense.

4. I would need to replenish my LN balance every now and then, as I am only sending funds to him and he is not sending anything back. That would save amount of on-chain transactions. Correct?

Yes, but keep in mind that you have to lock up enough coins for a few transactions. You can't refill a channel without using third-party services (they charge a fee and route their transactions through other nodes). You will have to close the channel and open another one. After you have closed the channel, the funds will appear on the other person's Bitcoin wallet.

5. When funding or opening a LN channel, can I pick amount of on-chain fee? I'd like to open a channel using 1 sat/byte, I don't mind to wait. C-lightning can allow for that?

That depends on the client. C-lightning definitely can do that. Take a look at the feerate parameter here.

6. Can I pay him passively so he doesn't need to do anything, no issuing of "invoices" or anything? In best case scenario, I have a node, I am opening and funding a channel, all he does it to install LN wallet and give me his address. And then I need to explain to him how to transfer BTC from LN wallet to his normal Electrum wallet.

Actually, yes! However, this would require you to run the same software because I believe that invoiceless payments are not cross-compatible yet. C-lightning has sendinvoiceless plugin and LND has lncli sendpayment command. I haven't tested this feature so I can't tell you how reliable it is.

[Wind_FURY]

Would pathfinding be made easier if you use a higher setting for fees? I believe that might support also the theory that fees in Lightning would be a little higher than the promoted, "unfairly cheap fees".