1000 sats
Inexplicable. Plenty of routing info for that low of an amount.
Topic: Lightning Network Discussion Thread - page 15. (Read 29719 times)
Inexplicable. Plenty of routing info for that low of an amount.
Could you tell us how much you have spent so far on the transaction fees? Opening over 170 channels must have been expensive.
I'm not sure how to find that information out
I know it's a non-trivial amount, and hoping I recover the channel open fees in a couple months at this rate
Interesting. shitcoin.com just closed all their channels. Removing 42 BTC of liquidity from the network.
Confirmed inability to pay lightning.spin and this is the first time I have been unable.Curious. I have a 0.01 BTC route to lightningspin.com.
How much were you trying to spend ?
1000 sats
Could you tell us how much you have spent so far on the transaction fees? Opening over 170 channels must have been expensive.
I'm not sure how to find that information out
I know it's a non-trivial amount, and hoping I recover the channel open fees in a couple months at this rate
Interesting. shitcoin.com just closed all their channels. Removing 42 BTC of liquidity from the network.
Confirmed inability to pay lightning.spin and this is the first time I have been unable.Curious. I have a 0.01 BTC route to lightningspin.com.
How much were you trying to spend ?
Interesting. shitcoin.com just closed all their channels. Removing 42 BTC of liquidity from the network.
Confirmed inability to pay lightning.spin and this is the first time I have been unable.
It looks like Lightning Network suffers from another problem - inactive nodes. According to this website, there are almost 1700 zombie nodes out of 3000! Honestly, I haven't encountered any routing error related to this issue, yet. Many nodes are considered capable of routing payments while they are offline for a 3 month "maintenance". Developers should be able to solve this problem in the near future.
How does the error related to this issue look like? For example, Eclair Android wallet informs user that certain channel is currently not available.
Could you tell us how much you have spent so far on the transaction fees? Opening over 170 channels must have been expensive.
How does the error related to this issue look like? For example, Eclair Android wallet informs user that certain channel is currently not available.
Autopilot was loaded with an additional 1BTC, and has been funding additional channels over the last 24 hours since shitcoin.com dropped out.
Could you tell us how much you have spent so far on the transaction fees? Opening over 170 channels must have been expensive.
Day Fourteen.
After trading Tweets with Alex Bosworth on Twitter, I reset my fees to default levels. It's important to charge enough fees to pay for channel rebalance operations in the future.
Autopilot was loaded with an additional 1BTC, and has been funding additional channels over the last 24 hours since shitcoin.com dropped out.
Average channel size is 0.01 BTC.
lnd.conf
[Bitcoin]
bitcoin.basefee=1000
bitcoin.feerate=10
---
"day_fee_sum": "0",
"week_fee_sum": "7",
"month_fee_sum": "12"
---
"num_pending_channels": 5,
"num_active_channels": 170,
"num_peers": 176,
After trading Tweets with Alex Bosworth on Twitter, I reset my fees to default levels. It's important to charge enough fees to pay for channel rebalance operations in the future.
Autopilot was loaded with an additional 1BTC, and has been funding additional channels over the last 24 hours since shitcoin.com dropped out.
Average channel size is 0.01 BTC.
lnd.conf
[Bitcoin]
bitcoin.basefee=1000
bitcoin.feerate=10
---
"day_fee_sum": "0",
"week_fee_sum": "7",
"month_fee_sum": "12"
---
"num_pending_channels": 5,
"num_active_channels": 170,
"num_peers": 176,
https://1ml.com/node/036b32ac6acf6d178f47c2139b7327ab85bd3d5f5c40681a9a48109ea21f53e1e5/history
Interesting. shitcoin.com just closed all their channels. Removing 42 BTC of liquidity from the network.
EDIT:
Day Thirteen.
shitcoin.com's influence has been entirely removed from the network.
"day_fee_sum": "3",
"week_fee_sum": "10",
"month_fee_sum": "12"
---
"num_pending_channels": 1,
"num_active_channels": 93,
"num_peers": 99,
EDIT2: https://medium.com/andreas-tries-blockchain/bitcoin-lightning-network-4-what-happens-when-you-close-half-of-the-lightning-network-b25b330dfad2
Interesting. shitcoin.com just closed all their channels. Removing 42 BTC of liquidity from the network.
EDIT:
Day Thirteen.
shitcoin.com's influence has been entirely removed from the network.
"day_fee_sum": "3",
"week_fee_sum": "10",
"month_fee_sum": "12"
---
"num_pending_channels": 1,
"num_active_channels": 93,
"num_peers": 99,
EDIT2: https://medium.com/andreas-tries-blockchain/bitcoin-lightning-network-4-what-happens-when-you-close-half-of-the-lightning-network-b25b330dfad2
Nothing against you, friend. Was just curious why the poster was regurgitating my question. Odd.
Oh. It is indeed. His English doesn't seem to be very good. Perhaps he thought that by copying you word for word he would nail the English a lot better than if he tried to write a similar question himself.
Day Twelve. Total node capacity over 1BTC. Average channel capacity approximately 0.01 BTC.
"day_fee_sum": "0",
"week_fee_sum": "8",
"month_fee_sum": "8"
---
"num_pending_channels": 2,
"num_active_channels": 93,
"num_peers": 97,
Nothing against you, friend. Was just curious why the poster was regurgitating my question. Odd.
"day_fee_sum": "0",
"week_fee_sum": "8",
"month_fee_sum": "8"
---
"num_pending_channels": 2,
"num_active_channels": 93,
"num_peers": 97,
Hey now. My question was different.
Nothing against you, friend. Was just curious why the poster was regurgitating my question. Odd.
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
this is logical idea!?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
this is logical idea!?
Deja vu.
Does anyone know of a node that will open a channel with you for no cost?
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ? I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
Hey now. My question was different. I didn't word it that well but really I just wanted to know if there were any free services that would open a channel out so that one could start receiving funds. I didn't mean without having to pay for blockchain transaction fees. Just that maybe a service that was free.
What might happen would be "Lightning payment services" built on top of Lightning. This was discussed before, with some Lightning critics calling out that "Lightning will be a fractional reserve or MtGox2", but what they really was saying was the services on top of Lightning could be.
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
this is logical idea!?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
this is logical idea!?
Deja vu.
Does anyone know of a node that will open a channel with you for no cost?
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ? I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
Hey now. My question was different. I didn't word it that well but really I just wanted to know if there were any free services that would open a channel out so that one could start receiving funds. I didn't mean without having to pay for blockchain transaction fees. Just that maybe a service that was free.
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
this is logical idea!?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
this is logical idea!?
Deja vu.
Does anyone know of a node that will open a channel with you for no cost?
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ? I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
You have to make an on chain transaction in order to open a LN channel.
Don't forget about channel factories which I described in this post. This feature is still not available but it's worth bringing up since it might encourage more people to open new channels.
My channel was closed by the peer for no reason and it looks like I'm not the only one. I decided to open a channel with another node.
Channel factory still requires the use of an on chain transaction to get into the factory. So for the purposes of his question, he can't get onto lightning for free even with channel factory tech.
You have to make an on chain transaction in order to open a LN channel.
Don't forget about channel factories which I described in this post. This feature is still not available but it's worth bringing up since it might encourage more people to open new channels.
My channel was closed by the peer for no reason and it looks like I'm not the only one. I decided to open a channel with another node.
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
this is logical idea!?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
this is logical idea!?
You have to make an on chain transaction in order to open a LN channel.
That debunks the Lightning critics' "conspiracy theory" that Blockstream wanted an off-chain layer to compete with the miners in collecting fees.
Quite alot of the 7829 satoshis here is profit, assuming that the Bosworth node opened the minimum number of channels to host 1.01351351 BTC of liquidity (i.e. each channel had the maximum 0.16777216 BTC per channel). If the original outputs used to open the channels were segwit outputs, and if the fees were rock bottom (that part is very likely), then profits are even more likely.
Pennies of profit though, lol!! (but still better than nothing for running a full-node, which is the status quo)
(note that it's impossible to have a conspiracy where the facts are publicly available, conspiracies are secret by definition. Labelling Lightning critics "conspiracy theorists" actually therefore makes you look uneducated)
But I am uneducated. No offense taken. Hahaha.
I said "conspiracy theory" from a point of view that big blockers having been saying lies on the Core developers want small blocks because "words", that Blockstream is backed by the Bilderberg group, the Lightning Network, before it went online, they said it was developed for the bankers to centralize Bitcoin, etc.
Watch them criticize it again by propagandizing that "running a Lightning node should be incentivized".
Indeed, it's very telling how much effort they put into trash talking in comparison to how much they want to add supporting voices to alternative ideas to improve cryptocurrencies.
Zero confirmation is one. But what they cannot do with that is, https://satoshis.place/
What are the latest updates on Andreas Brekken's node? I heard that he was only earning a few cents from it even though he owns half the liquidity in the LN.
I have found an interesting article whose aim is to show that capital is not the only factor when it comes to making money from the Lightning Network fees.
Comparison between Andreas Brekken's and Alex Bosworth's nodes. Fees = week_fee_sum. Source
Andreas' node's capacity has been stuck at 43 BTC for a few days now. We should give him a few weeks to collect more accurate data.
I was thinking about science question ...
"Why is it easier to pull a body than to push it?"
Indeed, it's very telling how much effort they put into trash talking in comparison to how much they want to add supporting voices to alternative ideas to improve cryptocurrencies.
This, exactly this, was my problem with Shelby lately.
That debunks the Lightning critics' "conspiracy theory" that Blockstream wanted an off-chain layer to compete with the miners in collecting fees.
Quite alot of the 7829 satoshis here is profit, assuming that the Bosworth node opened the minimum number of channels to host 1.01351351 BTC of liquidity (i.e. each channel had the maximum 0.16777216 BTC per channel). If the original outputs used to open the channels were segwit outputs, and if the fees were rock bottom (that part is very likely), then profits are even more likely.
Pennies of profit though, lol!! (but still better than nothing for running a full-node, which is the status quo)
(note that it's impossible to have a conspiracy where the facts are publicly available, conspiracies are secret by definition. Labelling Lightning critics "conspiracy theorists" actually therefore makes you look uneducated)
Watch them criticize it again by propagandizing that "running a Lightning node should be incentivized".
Indeed, it's very telling how much effort they put into trash talking in comparison to how much they want to add supporting voices to alternative ideas to improve cryptocurrencies.
That debunks the Lightning critics' "conspiracy theory" that Blockstream wanted an off-chain layer to compete with the miners in collecting fees.
Watch them criticize it again by propagandizing that "running a Lightning node should be incentivized".
Watch them criticize it again by propagandizing that "running a Lightning node should be incentivized".
Jump to: