Topic: The Lightning Network FAQ - page 28. (Read 33426 times)

You might also find this list useful. There are some entries which are not listed in your thread. It seems to be updated as soon as some exchange implements or announces support for the Lightning Network.

Bitrefill also accepts LN payments.

Exchanges accepting LN will result in more traders engage in arbitrage, and I don't think will result in a lot more adoption of LN. Services and merchants accepting LN is what will really drive adoption.

FixedFloat doesn't have the accusations Changelly has, so it's my preferred one nowadays. You can add CoinPlaza.it to the list too.
Those small instant exchanges are great to get small amounts of Bitcoin out of a large exchange without paying $25 in transaction fees, but you'll need to go through an altcoin with low withdrawal fees. It's also a convenient way to manually balance an existing channel when needed.

Here I think you're wrong, if nothing changed in the last weeks then we have the following popular exchanges accepting LN:

- Bitfinex (see here)
- OkEx
- Bitnovo (leading Spanish exchange)
- FixedFloat - Changelly-like exchange
- HodlHodl - P2P
- Paxful - P2P

OkEx and Paxful have added it in the last months, while Bitfinex accepts it since 2019 or 2020. There are a lot of other smaller exchanges and services, see this list (in Spanish) and this website. Kraken seems to be in process of adopting it, although I'm not up to date about the current progress.

the context was el salvador. there you can pay with bitcoin at mcdonalds, burger king and many more "mainstream" businesses

McDonalds? Burger King? I believe I’m in Bitcoin Land long enough to determine, and say that the Lightning Network has NOT been plentifully been adopted, because simply, not many users are wanting it over onchain transactions, and there’s almost no high volume Bitcoin services/exchanges that accept it.

there are sites like 1ml.com or amboss.space. but the problem with these statistics is, that they are always wrong in telling you how much the actual usage is, cause by design no one knows how much a channel is actually used (except the two parties who opened the channel of course)

as far as adaption goes, you could look into el salvador. they adopted bitcoin as legal tender and are using the lightning network (besides onchain payments). mcdonalds and burger king (just to name two unhealthy but known businesses...  ) and others accept payments over lightning now

damn, n0nce was faster...

Exact numbers of transactions can't be acquired, since it's an inherent feature of LN that I can send funds back and forth with a peer without anyone else knowing, as many times as I want. Some larger nodes try to retrieve information by probing other nodes in the network, like
1ML
Bitcoin Visuals

If you're interested, I suggest having a look at fillippone's great Lightning Network Observer thread as well!

Hahaha. You’re being sarcastic, but what you just posted is UNIRONICALLY TRUE.


Where can we see any monthly/daily graphs/data on the usage of the Lightning Network? I want actual, regular usage/utility that would give good reasons for its own existence. Where is Lightning adopted, and how much transaction volume?

Anyone here want to share your reasonings about fees for your channels? At least the ones that still can manage them manually (like me)...

I'm looking to understand if it is possible to set a range of fees (base and ppm) for a considered "high fee" and "low fee".
Contextualizing, I'm playing a bit with the fees of my channels and I just don't know what to put in a channel with more incoming liquidity, that theoretically, we want to keep outgoing payments from going through that channel.

Is like, base = 2000msat and ppm = 500 be able to be considered as a high fee? What values hve you people been using for these 2 purposes (keeping payments from going out on channels with more inbound capacity and "attracting" payments to go through channels with lower fees???

Well I am glad that you are looking around the forum and other places for lightning-related information, and so surely the more that you read in your area of specific interest (such as lightning historical discussions), the more you are going to learn as go.  Just looking at the contents of this thread, you are going to get a lot of information (maybe more so related to implementation questions).. if you even bothered to read through it... and decently organized in the OP too. with links to other threads and discussions, too.

I don't exactly know where to point you, but from my brief understanding and memory (and not claiming to be an expert), the lightning network went active in January 2018.. as a kind of rash response to then seeming spam attacks going on bitcoin (largely those spam attacks were in late 2017 and increased in December 2017 and January 2018) so in about mid to late January 2018, there were quite a few people who were against the reckless going live of lightning network.. but that did not stop the lightning network from continuing to operate live on bitcoin since January 2018 (even if not very developed at that time)..

So surely the lightning network had already been worked on through testing and with papers and discussions in 2017 (before going live in January 2018).. so I am not sure when the papers, discussions and even the testing started exactly, but if you find threads with discussions in 2017 then you are having discussions of lightning that precede lightning going live.  

Maybe someone else can chime in here a wee bit more better to the extent that Roversee might be really trying but unable to figure out the better threads on his desires to know about early day/ historical lightning discussions?  

The topic and the references might be of interest to others here too.. perhaps?

I am sorry you got my question that way. You're right, I should have added more context, but I did say I am a beginner, and navigating this site, Github etc. can be difficult sometimes... I thought that this was the most appropriate place to ask such a question and thought that someone had an answer. I wasn't trying to inspire anyone to do any work for me. I have spent a lot of time the past 2 weeks reading about the technical sides of Bitcoin and getting myself familiar with the governance, and all the places where the community discusses technical details about bitcoin (so not places like Reddit). One thing that I found most confusing was the way BIP's are handled. I am still not quite sure where people have informal/formal discussions about new technical features of Bitcoin and where it is possible to follow them. The repo points to this forum and the IRC chat. I have been on the IRC chat for a few days and it is mostly inactive. At least, they do not have discussions about new features etc. I have subscribed myself to the bitcoin-dev mailing list as well but that seems to be the most confusing place of all. There is no context given on the discussions there, it is just a continuation of an existing one. I guess what I am looking for is the first proposal of the Lightning network. The first-ever place was talked about and proposed to the community. Is it on this forum, in the mailing list, in a bitcoin conference in the form of a youtube video etc. I have seen the Lightning Network paper, but there must have been some informal discussion beforehand I am sure? I tried looking on this forum by sorting posts with the most view and searching for posts related to the lightning network. However, I didn't have much luck. Now I am here asking anyone if they know the answer to my question! Thanks all for your help.

Something like the Lightning Network needs the right packaging for the masses to adopt it.  Android Apps such as Phoenix have taken a few of those steps out (such as receiving on-chain bitcoin and then choosing a node/channel to open) by simplifying the process to send on-chain bitcoin to your wallet, send it out via on-chain or lightning network.

Just because you can only see an occasional flash of light and some rumbling off in the distance doesn't mean there isn't going to be a Lightning (network) storm that's slowly building as it approaches.

No, that's wrong. Everyone wants or will want it, since it allows them to send BTC faster and cheaper. It certainly took many years to get to a well-working state; remember how just few years ago, everyone who was actually using it on mainnet was in the 'reckless club' and expecting to lose some funds sooner or later
It's technologically quite tricky and the protocol and implementation had to be thoroughly thought through and tested before the large audience could be tackled. It hasn't been until very recently that LN was really marketed towards the average Joe, so I am sure adoption will rise exponentially.

Merchants and services do usually offer Lightning; it's made very easy through software like https://btcpayserver.org/.
Exchanges not yet; I suspect to collect more fees. Especially when we see exchanges charging 25 bucks to withdraw BTC, while a 1sat/vB tx costs 0.08€ to send, it becomes clear they are making big gains on those withdrawals. If people ask, they just point to BTC and say it's because BTC is just so expensive to send, while it's not actually true.
They also simply don't actually want people to withdraw, because then people trade more, thus paying more fees to the exchange. And of course if holding custody of peoples' keys, the exchange can do an exit scam at any time. Finally, LN makes it easy and cheap to withdraw; both of which are quite bad for exchanges and also i.e. gambling sites.

you seem to be not up-to-date. although you're right, the cryptocurrency community probably wants something else like gambling, lying, loosing money and so on

Shower thought, are the Lightning Network developers trying to build something that a majority of people in the whole cryptocurrency community doesn’t want? It has been years and years of development, growth of LN is there, but merchants, services, especially exchanges are very SLOW to adopt it. In fact, almost non-existent.

I think you misunderstood me. Or I explained myself poorly!
I know no shit about Go and don't even want to know. Same goes for most web programming languages. My small knowledge sticks to C, Bash, a bit of Python, a bit of Octave/Matlab and a bit of Spice/LTSpice.
That was what I meant, about the code efficiency and obviously, for compiled languages, the compiler itself. We can have multiple levels of code optimization in compilers.

Anyway, I got what I was looking for, that is to confirm my counter-arguments for what is said in that video. That's all.

Hey, I know how application code works and that it is compiled into machine language thus telling the hardware what to do, you don't need to explain that to me. It seems to me though that you're actually the one not knowing that Go code indeed runs less efficient than C code. So it is the code that puts unnecessary additional stress on the hardware, mainly depending on how well it's written and which language (compiler) is chosen.

Current- and next-gen mobile processors such as found in Raspberry Pis are easily able to run a full node + LN when using c-lightning, while they're sometimes hitting limits already today where lnd is used. And that's a fact.

Yeah, I was saying: the guy is a classic clueless BCH shill. There's no way around it. You can't think BCH is a better or the 'real' Bitcoin and simultaneously understand LN, because if you would, you'd see your shitcoin is useless and solves nothing.

I understand. Many people don't like youtube videos. But, at least me, I can't deny that there is smart people everywhere, so watching other opinions, no matter if in youtube, facebook or reddit or whatever, is not a reason to say it's not valid thoughts of those people. And when we read/watch/whatever other opinions, we also open our own horizons.

Anyway, c-lightning, mostly being written in C, I think the same way you think about running in low power devices but still, it's not the application code itself that may put some stress on the hardware, is what that code "tells" the hardware to do in terms of data processing.

I didn't even knew but some people on Blockstream started a project to simulate, test and improve path finding algorithms  using a large test Lightning network with an accurate topology extrapolated from the current topolgy with 1 millions channels. You guys can check it on Rusty Russel github here: https://github.com/rustyrussell/million-channels-project

There is also this post on medium from Rusty Russel talking about the supposed issue, here:
https://medium.com/blockstream/letting-a-million-channels-bloom-985bdb28660b

So, I'm just glad this claims were settled and we can rest assured that LN will be able to overcome any possible issues.




Yeah, I understand that it is 3 or 4 years old.
This guy was clearly trying to create fear on the LN or something. But yes, he's (or at least was) completely on the wrong side when he says that the attempts to increase the block size were immediately shut down. This says we would agree with it, completely ignoring the consequences of that regarding centralization, storage issues, etc. And, yes, segwit did it and more, in a very clever way, no doubts about it.

Sorry for the OT but was reading the latest posts and when I saw yours it reminded me of something:

https://twitter.com/ElectrumSV/status/1445091823215464452?s=20