reply on: Why do people declare the LN a failure? \ stacker news ~Ask

pull down to refresh

1205 sats \ 7 replies \ @TNStacker 5 Jan \ on: Why do people declare the LN a failure? Ask_SN

F.U.D.

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @0xBTC OP 5 Jan

yeah but how do you feel about the on-chain to LN fees? do you think theyre too high?

22 sats \ 3 replies \ @037447d9ca 5 Jan

On-chain to LN or on-chain to fiat is still on-chain. The point of lightning is to avoid the chain amap.

1 sat \ 2 replies \ @0xBTC OP 5 Jan

yeah but LN is so much less secure than on-chain self-custody.

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @037447d9ca 5 Jan

What are your security concerns about LN? Your node being offline long enough to suffer an attack is a far fetched scenario. Everything is a tradeoff. For small transfers on chain you are overpaying for security.

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @Caleb 6 Jan

I’m not worried about my node being offline too much. There’s watchtower. I’m worried about having a lot of Bitcoin on a hot wallet running experimental software. Cold storage is much much less risky.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @TNStacker 5 Jan

At times. So, then you wait. However, if you act appropriately when they are low (open channels, coinjoin, etc.), the waiting don't take nothing but patience. Lower time preference training. 🤣

90 sats \ 0 replies \ @Doo_Deux 5 Jan

Set up an alert and snag the fees when they are low.

https://txfees.watch

Unless it is while you are asleep. :)