pull down to refresh

I’m certainly guilty of pretty much only using L1 for managing lightning channels.

That's... what it's designed for really. L1 to open/close/manage Lightning channels and on-chain only for channel management + unusually large transactions.

Without this reality Bitcoin doesn't scale. With it we have mostly empty blocks right now and that's something we can work on

reply
124 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 1h

op_ctv would be nice. Could spread out more lightning open and close actions across a lot more blocks.

We should make a list of what our options are for this problem, with tail emissions being the most nuclear option, rank them by intensity and viability, and then just sit around until it becomes a problem.

If it then does become a problem, we then UASF each option.

Unfortunately, it takes waiting for it to be a problem for a unilateral soft fork (even hard fork) to work out for this problem specifically I believe. Otherwise the other chain that might URSF could get away with paying for security in block subsidy and win by being the default.

reply

Most of us don't make many unusually large transactions, but if home sales start being settled in bitcoin, that would provide a lot of on-chain transactions.

reply

I don't mean that large.

Most (90%) of my zaps are under 10 cents. Over 100$ is rare for me

reply

My guess is that lightning will handle pretty much everything under 1M sats, which is basically all ordinary transactions.

reply

Biggest Lightning transaction I ever made was like... 3 million sats. It took maybe 30 seconds to process but went through.

It was instant with a bunch of hops. The only downside was that at .5% in fees it costs more than just doing on-chain

On-chain would have been a flat fee... of like 25 cents. Lightning was instant and more private but some %?

reply