POLL: Have You Ever Used the Lightning Network?

[NotATether]

No I haven't. I only read the whitepaper. And I'm unhappy with the pace of LN protocol development.

Sure we have the contract part of the protocol completed and ready to build (and there are at least two protocol implementations of it), but even the whitepaper itself notes there are a bunch of holes that need to be plugged.

For example, 8.4 Payment Routing:

It is theoretically possible to build a route map implicitly from observing 2-of-2 multisigs on the blockchain to build a routing table. Note, however, this is not feasible with pay-to-script-hash transaction outputs, which can be resolved out-of-band from the bitcoin protocol via a third party routing service. Building a routing table will become necessary for large operators (e.g. BGP, Cjdns). Eventually, with optimizations, the network will look a lot like the correspondent banking network, or Tier-1 ISPs. Similar to how packets still reach their destination on your home network connection, not all participants need to have a full routing table. The core Tier-1 routes can be online all the time —while nodes at the edges, such as average users, would be connected intermittently.
Node discovery can occur along the edges by pre-selecting and offering partial routes to well-known nodes.

We do not currently have a specification for this - every implementation is doing what it wants - and I think this it is absolutely necessary to have standard for this kind of stuff to resolve idiosyncrasies and quirks in what the description above has. (Eg: "The core Tier-1 routes can be online all the time" we haven't even defined what a tier 1 LN node is!)

[on a side note - even my ISP has crap routing, evident by my multiple attempts to load the Reply page and post this message: obviously we do not want to allow for that kind of behavior in LN.]

Another example of out-of-scope concepts is in 9.4 "Data Loss":

When one party loses data, it is possible for the counterparty to steal funds. This can be mitigated by having a third party data storage service where encrypted data gets sent to this third party service which the party cannot decrypt. Additionally, one should choose channel counterparties who are responsible and willing to provide the current state, with some periodic tests of honesty.

Neither how a data retention 3rd party would work nor how to store transaction data on a node redundantly has been defined, and quite frankly nobody can make such a service if they don't even know how the protocol would use it relative to their service. Not that I like the idea of a 3rd party intermediary in the first place - making data loss from lossy UDP connections extremely unlikely is much better.

Yet another unfinished business is in 9.2: Forced Expiration Spam, when someone expires many channels or activates too many timeouts at the same time. One solution is proposed for the former and two for the latter (the other is in section 10) but none of them are elaborated well enough to actually design a standard mitigation for this. And IMO this one is so bad that clients shouldn't be allowed to run in production without a patch to this.

I am not anti-LN (I also do not think it's an altcoin, but at the same time I feel that I can't call it canon bitcoin either since it allows for sub-satoshi payments) but frankly it should be clear that our work is not finished yet. We risk having different incompatible standards of LN implementations that segregate users to the same client if we don't have specifications for everything. Some anonymous guy was bankrolled by Square in tenths of BTC which is 2x its worth now to develop LN and we need to see some results because we aren't seeing any major additions. People are talking about increasing the block size as a solution for some of these vulns but this'll just introduce more drama. There are already companies like LN Labs who have their own view of how the network should be constructed and stuff like this is going to faction the network.

Let's make things simple.

- Mitigations for spam expirations and
- a proper, lossless, routing protocol for LN contracts

has to be standardized first, and maybe then we'll see some real adoption.

Then wallets need to make it easier for users to "move" BTC between mainnet and LN.

Then the majority of wallets and especially exchanges have to implement the protocol too (do not underestimate the influence of exchanges).

[LoyceV]

I just noticed jochen-hoenicke.de, my favourite Bitcoin fee estimate site accepts LN donations:

Big spender as I am, I paid for an hour

If you're new to LN, this offer still stands:

Please post a QR-code with a 100 sat ($0.06, I'm cheap) LN payment request. I'll fund the first 10-ish I'll see (one per user of course). I don't want to turn this into a giveaway thread, but for testing it should be okay. If your request is valid for 24 hours I should see it on time (if it's only 1 hour I might be asleep).
I'm asking for a QR-code so I can easily pay from mobile without copying codes.

[nc50lc]

I just noticed jochen-hoenicke.de, my favourite Bitcoin fee estimate site accepts LN donations:

Yeah, I've been sending some lightning satoshi to the site since September last year for testing purposes (to try if my channel is the problem when I'm failing to send LN funds) aside from appreciation for being an early adopter of lightning.
Actually, it's the only site that I've found that accepts low value LN donations, so there's no other choice :D

I don't know if lightning donations to that site has been available much earlier than Q3 of 2020.

[LoyceV]

Actually, it's the only site that I've found that accepts low value LN donations, so there's no other choice

You can also "donate" anything from 1 sat to at least 2 online casinos. Or feed some chickens Last time I did that they charged 1000 sat, now it's 50 sat.

[nc50lc]

Actually, it's the only site that I've found that accepts low value LN donations, so there's no other choice

You can also "donate" anything from 1 sat to at least 2 online casinos. Or feed some chickens Last time I did that they charged 1000 sat, now it's 50 sat.

Thanks, apparently google search isn't reliable when it comes with "lightning donation" queries.
I have found a list but most of them are inactive or have very high minimum donation amount.

yummy yummy meal worms.

lol

[Pmalek]

Yeah, I've been sending some lightning satoshi to the site since September last year for testing purposes (to try if my channel is the problem when I'm failing to send LN funds)

How many of your Lightning Network payments fail to reach the intended receivers percentage wise? Do you consider it to be a cause of worry personally?
Regarding donations via the Lightning Network. After a quick search, I found that the Bitcoin Development Fund accepts LN donations.
Wikileaks does the same, but I think they accept it in their shop, not exclusively for donations.

[nc50lc]

Yeah, I've been sending some lightning satoshi to the site since September last year for testing purposes (to try if my channel is the problem when I'm failing to send LN funds)

How many of your Lightning Network payments fail to reach the intended receivers percentage wise? Do you consider it to be a cause of worry personally?

I'd say it's about 90% reliable in my experience, high because the other end of my channel is connected to what they call "Hub", aka a well-connected lightning node.
Most of those failures are from instant exchanger from time to time, specifically Fixedfloat, but I think it's their channels' capacity since they usually 'fix' it after a while.
In jochen's mempool stat and some users of custodial lightning wallets, I haven't experienced any payment failures.

[LoyceV]

I'd say it's about 90% reliable in my experience

The few times I've had a LN-transaction that failed, my wallet tells me I have to wait. That's the annoying part, I can't just try again instantly, the transaction is in limbo. That also means I can't just try another wallet to try another route.

I'd say less than 10% fails nowadays.

[Pmalek]

Bump

[KingsDen]

I have not used the LN before. But I have a few questions.
1. Apart from the timeliness of transactions procession, are there any other advantages of the LN?
2. The cost of opening/closing channels and the minimal cost of transaction fees, if summed together, will it not equate to the original transaction fee on the blockchain?
3. In terms of fraudulent transactions or transactions complications, if the channel is not closed, can the transaction also be tracked in the blockchain?

[Rath_]

1. Apart from the timeliness of transactions procession, are there any other advantages of the LN?

It is possible to build more layers on top of the Lightning Network. For example, Sphinx Chat takes advantage of the way LN transactions work and provides a decentralised encrypted messaging service.

2. The cost of opening/closing channels and the minimal cost of transaction fees, if summed together, will it not equate to the original transaction fee on the blockchain?

The Lightning Network was not designed for one-time payments. You are supposed to use your channels multiple times before you close them. You have to pay an on-chain transaction fee for both channel opening and closing transactions. Since LN fees in most cases are extremely low, those channels will quickly pay themselves off if you use them more than once.

3. In terms of fraudulent transactions or transactions complications, if the channel is not closed, can the transaction also be tracked in the blockchain?

I am not sure if I understand your question correctly. Lightning Network payments are not recorded on the blockchain. Instead, both participants of the channel update its balance without broadcasting anything to the Bitcoin network. If your Lightning payment is routed through multiple nodes then it becomes nearly impossible to track your transaction. Once you decide to close your channel, the closing transaction will include only yours and your peer's address (or either of them).