what if Bitcoin fees become high hindering normal users to run their own LN node

[tyook]

Most bitcoiners would agree that it is desirable for Bitcoin's decentralization that we have users running their own Bitcoin full nodes and, now with advances of second layer solutions, to run their own Lightning Network nodes. Today a normal person can open LN channels and be a node operator, which is very good because the LN protocol is decentralized and we can reach more autonomy running our own nodes.

One of my concerns is that fees on the Bitcoin network could become very high and that it would be very costly for normal users to run their own LN nodes since to open channels it requires an on-chain transaction. Moreover, if the fees are too high then it would increase potential risk of malicious attackers in a disputed close because a "justice transaction" is an on-chain transaction, which can be costly for the honest party trying to legitimately reclaim the funds in a disputed close. This could make LN and other layer 2 solutions quite centralized in the future since normal users wouldn`t be able to have their nodes...

Is this really a plausible concern for the next years/decades? How could that problem be mitigated?

[Charles-Tim]

To reduce mempool congestion and onchain transaction fee and to make the transaction faster as possible, layer 2 which is lightning network was invested. As some people are relying on lightning network, this will reduce people dependency on onchain transaction to certain level, that alone will make mempool not to be congested. And for now, mempool is not congested.


You do not have to be a lightning node operator before you can open a channel. You do not have to be a node operator also before you can use lightning network for making transaction

[tyook]

> You do not have to be a lightning node operator before you can open a channel. You do not have to be a node operator also before you can use lightning network for making transaction

Yes, this is true, you can use LN without opening channels, by using someone's else channel. But if you are not running your own node you don't have control over the funds and you are relying on a thirdy party. It is the equivalent of letting funds on a exchange. The saying "not your keys not your coins" is for bitcoin layer 1, while for layer 2 it would be "not your [LN] node, not your coins"

[franky1]

To reduce mempool congestion and onchain transaction fee and to make the transaction faster as possible, layer 2 which is lightning network was invested. As some people are relying on lightning network, this will reduce people dependency on onchain transaction to certain level, that alone will make mempool not to be congested. And for now, mempool is not congested.

LN is not a bitcoin feature. it is its own network with its own rules and can be used without or without other currencies
LN is a separate network where payments(onion payments) are nothing like bitcoin.
LN can function without bitcoin. yep you can get 'imbound balance' withut needing a funding locked amount of bitcoin under your control. (temp ID does not need any funding to create a channel of msat balance)(aka unbaked/fractional reserve)
LN is not bitcoin
LN's aim is to take people away from using bitcoin. which is what all crap coins try to do
taking users away fro bitcoin is not "scaling bitcoin" it is instead de-populating bitcoin

LN love bitcoin fees going up because once they can lock people into LN people wont want to leave due to bitcoin fee fears. and thats how they recruit people into their altnet

LN has bad monetary policy. no network accounting system and its not as private as it promotes
it literally gossips peoples node funding address and also a tagged name too .

the lack of utility makes it easy to 'listen to the noise' of channel updates to see where payments move from and too. without even needing to 'peel the onion'
its not what it promises to be

..
as for the fee thing

firstly to set up LN people need to move funds from a bitcoin wallet to an LN wallet. and THEN split that LN wallet value into multiple channels. meaning MULTIPLE transactions just at set up.. more then they pretend to suggest

then when closing closing multiple channels does not go to a bitcoin wallet but back to the master key of the LN wallet. which then to completely escape out of LN needs another movement out

so the whole process to truly enter and escape LN full is more transactions than it suggests

so unless you are making more then several payments for goods/services per (time you want to use LN) its not worth using LN

also when using LN where they use 1% of value per channel as LN fee. if you are 7 hops away from your destination. the fee becomes 7% of value.. which again can end up being more then using bitcoin, which is just sats/byte. which is cheaper when you start spending a sufficient amount
in short LN only works on very small purchases

..
some will say you can avoid chanel closing by using multiple channels to "rebalance" but by rebalancing your channels you then off-balance other peoples balance. meaning they then rebalance theirs to counter your act. and suddenly instead of people just moving value to buy goods or services they are liquidity balance fighting to try getting to a equilibrium.. in short they waste more balance on LN fee's fighting each others rebalance attempts against each other
..
there is liquidity issues with LN too
if you want to move <0.02btc(<$400) 5 hops. means those 4 middlemen need $400 spare JUST FOR YOU to succeed
meaning for you to move $400 needs $1600 spare liquidity in the network for just YOUR payment to go through

if you were to have a netwkrk of 1million users of only $400 per channel where each node has 4 channels
it requires ALOT of value to be locked just to let one person at a time to move value across a network

the more users on LN causes more bottlenecks. more payment failures
..
 there are many flaws in LN not talked about. let alone their utopian promises broken and yet alone the silly sales pitches of saying LN is the solution to bitcoin

LN only functions well for small amounts. trying to move more then $500 dont work once you have to move value beyond a few hops to a destination

LN does not solve all bitcoin value needs or transaction needs

[Helena Yu]

I will tell you a truth

1. Most of Bitcoin holders doesn't run full node because only less people are really care with their privacy.

2. You sound like many exchanges are still not support lightning network, while the fact there's a lot exchanges already support it! [1] I have no idea why there's an exchange still not update with LN after 4 years.

3. Using LN is really easy, you just need to take few steps more and it doesn't take you for 1 hour to understand it! [2]

[1] https://github.com/theDavidCoen/LightningExchanges
[2] https://bluewallet.io/lightning/

[Doan9269]

LN's aim is to take people away from using bitcoin. which is what all crap coins try to do

I think am against this and this should be my first time of hearing this, lightening network is meant for people to ise and this specifically targeted at bitcoin users to help have a better experience when making transactions with delay confirmation or bulky one at a go with better offers.

LN love bitcoin fees going up because once they can lock people into LN people wont want to leave due to bitcoin fee fears. and thats how they recruit people into their altnet

I don't believe if the lightening network is an altnet, testnet or mainnet as in the case you may call it, the fee is not to serve a threat but consider using the network with the service provided as the reason to the fee which i think justifies the mempool when full and your transactions isn't confirmed, lightening network is targeted on bitcoin transaction and denying it importance is as using a inappropriate means to deny bitcoin in disguise.

[franky1]

LN's aim is to take people away from using bitcoin. which is what all crap coins try to do

I think am against this and this should be my first time of hearing this, lightening network is meant for people to ise and this specifically targeted at bitcoin users to help have a better experience when making transactions with delay confirmation or bulky one at a go with better offers.

LN love bitcoin fees going up because once they can lock people into LN people wont want to leave due to bitcoin fee fears. and thats how they recruit people into their altnet

I don't believe if the lightening network is an altnet, testnet or mainnet as in the case you may call it, the fee is not to serve a threat but consider using the network with the service provided as the reason to the fee which i think justifies the mempool when full and your transactions isn't confirmed, lightening network is targeted on bitcoin transaction and denying it importance is as using a inappropriate means to deny bitcoin in disguise.

without needing to recompile LN software. without needing to change code of LN. LN with just a setting change within the app is compatible with multiple currencies

also LN has wallets that can create LN balance without even needing to lock mainnet coins of any of those networks

LN is not forced or locked to only work with bitcoin!!

also bitcoin(legacy) transaction formats are not LN compatible. segwit(newer format) is the bridge gateway format of LN. and multiple networks need segwit to bridge to LN
these "segwit" formats have orchestrated that legacy mainnet fee's be classed as premium 4x segwit fee's
(actual code is legacy * 4.. its not segwit / 4.. thus in true code its not "segwit is discount" its "legacy is premium")

thus promoting native legacy as being expensive to promote utility of these newer bridge formats, to then be one step closer to recruit users to another network and stop users wanting to use bitcoin

[DooMAD]

It should be noted that franky1 is a biased, fear-mongering zealot and is utterly incapable of being impartial about LN.  He only ever paints the worst-case-scenario.  Few people share his alarmist and extreme views.  I personally consider him to be a troll.  Please seek information from many sources before drawing any conclusions.

[franky1]

it should be noted that DooMAD(and a few buddies of his) are an antagonising snake oil salesmen phishing an alternative network as if it is as secure, better than and pretends that be bitcoin
(however, it IS another network. so treat is so. be cautious about value put into other networks)

he is just upset that i kill his (and his buddies) broken promise sales pitches which they only want to mention the very very small instances of "best case" scenario

yes do your own research. but make sure that research is not from the buddy group of snake oil salesmen(confirmation bias nonsense echo chamber)..
read the code. learn the technology. research how its different to bitcoin. and also to be risk awareness, look for the flaws not the hopes/dreams

(side note: there are far far more flaws and bugs in LN that i have not even mentioned. the main ones i do mention are the ones that have been experienced by users and/or LN DEVS have experienced/admitted as being a problem)

[mendace]

Is this really a plausible concern for the next years/decades? How could that problem be mitigated?

It is possible that transaction fees on the Bitcoin network could become high in the future, which could make it more expensive for normal users to open and maintain channels on the Lightning Network. This could lead to a more centralized system, as only users who can afford the high fees would be able to participate.
However, there are several potential solutions that could mitigate this problem. One solution is to increase the block size, which would allow for more transactions to be included in each block and therefore lower fees. Another solution is to implement a fee market that would allow users to bid for priority in the block confirmation process.

Additionally, there are several other layer 2 solutions being developed, such as the Plasma and the Optimistic Rollup, which are designed to enable scalability, increase the number of transactions that can be processed per second, and reduce fees.

Overall, while there is a risk that high transaction fees could make it more difficult for normal users to participate in the Bitcoin network and its layer 2 solutions, there are also several potential solutions that could help to mitigate this problem.

[franky1]

Is this really a plausible concern for the next years/decades? How could that problem be mitigated?

It is possible that transaction fees on the Bitcoin network could become high in the future, which could make it more expensive for normal users to open and maintain channels on the Lightning Network. This could lead to a more centralized system, as only users who can afford the high fees would be able to participate.

as LN gets more popular. it then requires each node to then have more channels(to avoid centralising to only partner with "hubs""factories" to ensure they have route exposure to may payments
more channels=more open/close sessions unless people "lock up" for lengthier periods and not close each day/month/year

the altnets business plan is to take people away from using bitcoin and not return for a year.

LN is a flawed sub network and not even one that is locked to only function with bitcoin. its lack of protocol/monetary policy security makes it just a silly niche service for silly small amounts.

yes other new subnetworks will flourish and offer a better monetary policy with value security. but LN isnt it

However, there are several potential solutions that could mitigate this problem. One solution is to increase the block size, which would allow for more transactions to be included in each block and therefore lower fees. Another solution is to implement a fee market that would allow users to bid for priority in the block confirmation process.

Additionally, there are several other layer 2 solutions being developed, such as the Plasma and the Optimistic Rollup, which are designed to enable scalability, increase the number of transactions that can be processed per second, and reduce fees.

Overall, while there is a risk that high transaction fees could make it more difficult for normal users to participate in the Bitcoin network and its layer 2 solutions, there are also several potential solutions that could help to mitigate this problem.

yep more transactions per block = less users pay individually..
if miners desire $2k / block in total fees. at 2000tx a block =$1 a fee
if miners desire $2k / block in total fees. at 8000tx a block =$0.25 a fee
and simply removing the cludge of "scale factor" and "weight".. and go back to practical real bytes and mb's to allow full (new rule) 4mb space can then allow 8000tx. without much hassle

as for fees formulae
instead of everyone bidding on "highest wins"
a fee formulae can be introduced and can be enforced(yep code can do that.. because yep its code)
whereby someone spamming blocks with UTXO spends of under 1day age pay higher fee to "win" compared to a UTXO that is older that can pay a lower fee to "win" thus solving and penalising the spammer only and not the normal people
thus removing the nonsense spam to allow more normal peoples tx to take that spot in a block thus more utility

EG
current height -  tx input utxo block#=age. if age < 144 blocks. then fee * X (where X is multiplying factor)

the beautiful thing about code (in a consensus network with block rejection mechanisms) is that code can create rules and enforce them. whereby if a "spam" tx is being allowed where its fee is not substantially bigger then older tx average fee. the block gets rejected thus makes mining pools pick tx's more correctly based on code aka rules thus not allowing cheap spam tx's

heck even without "enforcement" via rejections. just having the fee formulae code in the node makes mining pools pick certain tx by default based on an unenforced fee formulae code just being in the node. (as proven by the treating of legacy as * 4)

[hd49728]

With great adoption for Segwit bech32 and Lightning Network last three years, transaction fees on Bitcoin network has become very cheap in average (BTC and USD), median (USD). It will remain cheap in future and if anything happens Lightning Network can handle it.

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/average-transaction-fee
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/average-transaction-fee-usd
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/median-transaction-fee

I agree that Lightning Network will continue to grow too.
https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/lightning-network?orgId=1&from=now-5y&to=now

[Upgrade00]

If the transaction costs of Bitcoin becomes too high in the future that "nornal'' users would not be able to run lightening network nodes, I don't think that will be the major concern anymore.
Such a spike in fees would affect Bitcoin all round and users would not be able to make regular, day to day transactions on the network lowering scalability. So we will be looking at a broad solution, and not one specific to running lightening network or full nodes.

Is this really a plausible concern for the next years/decades? How could that problem be mitigated?

With a steady drop in coinbase rewards over the next 2-3 decades there would likely be increased pressure on transaction fees which could lead to a feerate spike.
One of the ways to mitigate this is off chain transactions like LN, which would lessen the burden on chain and lead to a less congested mempool. There are also more BIPs which are aimed at improving scalability.

[franky1]

With great adoption for Segwit bech32 and Lightning Network last three years, transaction fees on Bitcoin network has become very cheap in average (BTC and USD), median (USD). It will remain cheap in future

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/average-transaction-fee-usd

2015            2023
$0.26           $1.14

thats a 4.5x multiple

oh and $1.14 is only "cheap" for a "first world" guy... but a whole days salary for a billion plus people in other countries
#prospective

..... It will remain cheap in future and if anything happens Lightning Network can handle it.

lightning can only handle about $715 payments across route at best(check out the average channel capacity($1430) / 2 users) do the math

also average "fee per sat"

0.000023 sat/sat
$715 = 0.03421052 (@$20.9k/1btc)(time of posting)
fee =78sat = $0.016
now multiply that per hop

yep LN is 1.6 cent per $715 spend PER HOP.. but if you are moving upto 5 hops it becomes $0.08
(average channel per node of 9 = average 5-6 hops to reach all user nodes of LN)

bitcoin 2015 allowed people to move any amount for a max of $0.26
bitcoin 2023 allows people to move any amount for a max of $1.14 (expensive for billions of people)

LN.. a separate network costs about $0.08 at a $715 max realistic spend of reaching anyone on the network
which is already more then the "micro fee" promises of "sub penny"

[hd49728]

2015            2023
$0.26           $1.14

thats a 4.5x multiple

oh and $1.14 is only "cheap" for a "first world" guy... but a whole days salary for a billion plus people in other countries
#prospective

Compare 2015 and 2023 is not fair. How about inflation from fiat currency, central banks in those years? Worse than 4.5 multiplier?

$1.14 is a transaction fee for people who don't understand Bitcoin network and accept to use centralized exchanges to broadcast transactions for them. If they accepted to use those centralized services, they can not say they are poor because using those services.

They are rich or not rich but too generous to donate their bitcoins to centralized services.

If they spend time to learn they can broadcast their bitcoin transactions with fee less than $0.1 for one transaction. $0.1 in fee is not for the rich and not for people in first-world guys.

[franky1]

Compare 2015 and 2023 is not fair. How about inflation from fiat currency, central banks in those years? Worse than 4.5 multiplier?

EXCUSE ME!!

fiat is starting to out promote crypto
i can "faster payment"(wire) fiat from UK to europe in 15 seconds for ZERO FEE
and in amounts of more then £584($715)

oh and 8 years ago.. bread cost me £1 it now costs me $1.50
car fuel cost me £1.10/ltr it now costs me $1.45/ltr
milk cost me £1 it now costs me $1.60

that is not 4.5x.. so dont blame inflation!!

the bitcoin scaling wars were about the era of 2015+
that the $0.26 was TOO much. when considering a WORLD currency outside the mindsets of "first world"

i too am a first worlder with coffee being just $£1.50 thus to me in my little corner of the world its not "much"

however to billions of people thats a days wage if nor more than a days wage.
have some prospective outside of a corner of the world and see the whole world picture

the promises of the scaling debates was to get to "micropenny" status.. which even LN is failing at

your "its cheap" is just saying bitcoin and LN is "cheap" for only the elite countries of the world
..

so all the promises of crypto-development competing against fiat. have for the last 8 years of patiently waiting for these "promises" of sub penny transactions.. have not flourished

..
oh and please dont then say silly ploys like "well if you wait for a weekend evening to make a tx and are happy to wait 48 hours to confirm you can pay X less"
is not an ideal offering to even suggest, when reality is "good money" should be efficient

its like a commuter trying to get to work(weekday-daytime!!).. in 2015 being told train tickets will get cheaper..
then 8 years of waiting are told train tickets are 4.5x more then the "promise" era
and being told "dont worry if you want cheap train tickets take the weekend 'red-eye' train" which is useless for a working day businessman wanting same day train transport
or "here take this plane ticket(other transport(network))" .. (where the airport terminals, rubways and destinations are not always open compared to always open train destinations)

#prospective

if you want to suggest "nothing need to be done" about bitcoin fee's and just say bitcoin is unfit for X corner of the world.. you are promoting centralisation

"sorry india and africa, these day time commuter trains are not for you. we only want them to work for the yanks.. you need to take the weekend red-eye train" Pfft.