pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 5 Apr
wait... people are still using onchain as a day to day payment method?
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @nerd2ninja OP 22h
And you know what? That's on me for continually calling any Bitcoin transaction a "payment" as a generalization even when I mean inter-wallet transfer or channel open and close.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 21h
exactly that.
onchain are transactions
LN are payments.
Very few people get that !
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja OP 22h
I mean yes, but that's not really what this is about. People were complaining mostly for the on-chain cost to withdraw to self custody.
More point I was trying to make it is that its also about the opening and closing cost of lightning channels. When people go to close a lightning channel they just pearl clutch "Oh the humanity these fees are so high!" and the money saved from doing all those lightning transactions are just looked over.
So I was just pointing out that people need to be tricked into things sometimes. Like having part of your lightning fee go to an internal fund for the channel closing fee instead of paying the whole channel closing fee all at once and going "Whoa so high!"
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 4 Apr
Very cool suggestions
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 4 Apr
Would opening a new channel out of a channel close be possible? I guess that would only be if certain conditions are met like a high fee environment, uninitiated forced closed and a connected peer.
reply
43 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja OP 4 Apr
TBH, I'm kinda at a point where I'm like "this is unsafe without a soft fork, but let's implement it anyway and tell users to pray and give them information about the soft fork instead of being scared to touch it at all" lol.
reply