For a channel that had been closed you're looking for a multisig 2 of 2 script
If 
Topic: The Lightning Network FAQ - page 48. (Read 32053 times)
I have a question.
Looking at a transaction in the blockchain. How can I know if that transaction created or closed a Lightning Network channel?
I would like to try to find those transactions and make some stats with them.
Looking at a transaction in the blockchain. How can I know if that transaction created or closed a Lightning Network channel?
I would like to try to find those transactions and make some stats with them.
Realistically you're probably only going to be able to work out its a lightning channel on the blockchain once it's been closed. It may be possible to send htlcs incomplete down channels that are active to see the available balance they might have for transferring - but then you'd lock their funds in a htlc potentially and it'll depend on the node as to how long that is.
For a channel that had been closed you're looking for a multisig 2 of 2 script to be highlighted in whatever you're using for the analysis (eg the bitcoin core daemon). And for the multisig address to only have 2 transactions - channel opening and channel closure.
I have a question.
Looking at a transaction in the blockchain. How can I know if that transaction created or closed a Lightning Network channel?
I would like to try to find those transactions and make some stats with them.
Looking at a transaction in the blockchain. How can I know if that transaction created or closed a Lightning Network channel?
I would like to try to find those transactions and make some stats with them.
I know I asked something similar before and never got an answer, is there any software out there that monitors your Lightning Node and lets you know if it's unreachable?
I now have the server itself monitored along with the bitcoind / lnd / etc. But I would like to know if there is a way to know that for some reason it can't be seen by the outside world. Happened the other day, server was up and running fine along with all the services, BUT for some reason it could not see the outside world, or at least the outside world could not see it. A quick reboot fixed it, but a little warning would have been nice. Honestly if I had not tried to send a payment I never would have know that nothing could route to it.
-Dave
I now have the server itself monitored along with the bitcoind / lnd / etc. But I would like to know if there is a way to know that for some reason it can't be seen by the outside world. Happened the other day, server was up and running fine along with all the services, BUT for some reason it could not see the outside world, or at least the outside world could not see it. A quick reboot fixed it, but a little warning would have been nice. Honestly if I had not tried to send a payment I never would have know that nothing could route to it.
-Dave
Can't you just ping or telnet from a different machine?
Code:
telnet
Should connect.
so BFX's node would be something like
Code:
telnet 34.65.85.39 9745
which seems to work.if you want to see if your lighnting functionality actually works, you'll probably need to set up a second node and try a HTLC every n minutes...?
That's what I figured. I have the processes monitored, and an external ping running, but was looking for an automated thing that someone already wrote to do the actual connection to LND to see if it actually responds as opposed to just sitting there running but not working.
Guess I'll hack something together and set it to run every 5 minutes. Surprised nobody has written anything to do it yet.
-Dave
I know I asked something similar before and never got an answer, is there any software out there that monitors your Lightning Node and lets you know if it's unreachable?
I now have the server itself monitored along with the bitcoind / lnd / etc. But I would like to know if there is a way to know that for some reason it can't be seen by the outside world. Happened the other day, server was up and running fine along with all the services, BUT for some reason it could not see the outside world, or at least the outside world could not see it. A quick reboot fixed it, but a little warning would have been nice. Honestly if I had not tried to send a payment I never would have know that nothing could route to it.
-Dave
I now have the server itself monitored along with the bitcoind / lnd / etc. But I would like to know if there is a way to know that for some reason it can't be seen by the outside world. Happened the other day, server was up and running fine along with all the services, BUT for some reason it could not see the outside world, or at least the outside world could not see it. A quick reboot fixed it, but a little warning would have been nice. Honestly if I had not tried to send a payment I never would have know that nothing could route to it.
-Dave
Can't you just ping or telnet from a different machine?
Code:
telnet
Should connect.
so BFX's node would be
Code:
telnet 34.65.85.39 9745
which seems to work.if you want to see if your lighnting functionality actually works, you'll probably need to set up a second node and try a HTLC every so many minutes...?
I know I asked something similar before and never got an answer, is there any software out there that monitors your Lightning Node and lets you know if it's unreachable?
I now have the server itself monitored along with the bitcoind / lnd / etc. But I would like to know if there is a way to know that for some reason it can't be seen by the outside world. Happened the other day, server was up and running fine along with all the services, BUT for some reason it could not see the outside world, or at least the outside world could not see it. A quick reboot fixed it, but a little warning would have been nice. Honestly if I had not tried to send a payment I never would have know that nothing could route to it.
-Dave
I now have the server itself monitored along with the bitcoind / lnd / etc. But I would like to know if there is a way to know that for some reason it can't be seen by the outside world. Happened the other day, server was up and running fine along with all the services, BUT for some reason it could not see the outside world, or at least the outside world could not see it. A quick reboot fixed it, but a little warning would have been nice. Honestly if I had not tried to send a payment I never would have know that nothing could route to it.
-Dave
.. they 'can'. Whatever they to, 100% SEC / CFTC et al will shut it down, even after 7 + years. No way doing such (bigger) without engagment with regs
Tech doesnt solve that - get real
Tech doesnt solve that - get real
Oh, that's right, you believe that only the fervent followers of your worthless clonecoin understand what regulations are.
News flash, zealot, Liquid has been developed with regulatory conformity in mind:
businesses can quickly issue Liquid-based security tokens with the click of a button, and establish sophisticated rulesets to conform with their regulatory requirements with no software engineering experience required.
token rules do not have to be written at the smart contract level–as is the case with other blockchain platforms–and can be easily adjusted via the Liquid Securities control panel to allow issuers to adapt to fast-evolving digital asset regulations.
Looks like tech does, in fact, solve that.
Now kindly go away with your regurgitated faketoshi propaganda.
But it is happening, https://blockstream.com/liquid/
There are more than 20 exchanges in the "federation". The trade-off is "OK" for exchange to exchange transfers if you ask me, doesn't need your Bitcoins to be traded to altcoins for "faster/cheaper transfers".
Liquid is a very enterprise kind of solution. Its between exchanges and the only thing you can trade L-BTC with is stablecoins and assets on their chain. For most people, other bitcoin pegs are becoming more of a norm. Like tBTC, renBTC etc.There are more than 20 exchanges in the "federation". The trade-off is "OK" for exchange to exchange transfers if you ask me, doesn't need your Bitcoins to be traded to altcoins for "faster/cheaper transfers".
Liquid is just something that Blockstream did because they can. If anybody else did that, they would have been denounced (and were so) by almost the whole bitcoin community as a centralized solution.
.. they 'can'. Whatever they to, 100% SEC / CFTC et al will shut it down, even after 7 + years. No way doing such (bigger) without engagment with regs
Tech doesnt solve that - get real
But it is happening, https://blockstream.com/liquid/
There are more than 20 exchanges in the "federation". The trade-off is "OK" for exchange to exchange transfers if you ask me, doesn't need your Bitcoins to be traded to altcoins for "faster/cheaper transfers".
Liquid is a very enterprise kind of solution. Its between exchanges and the only thing you can trade L-BTC with is stablecoins and assets on their chain. For most people, other bitcoin pegs are becoming more of a norm. Like tBTC, renBTC etc.There are more than 20 exchanges in the "federation". The trade-off is "OK" for exchange to exchange transfers if you ask me, doesn't need your Bitcoins to be traded to altcoins for "faster/cheaper transfers".
Liquid is just something that Blockstream did because they can. If anybody else did that, they would have been denounced (and were so) by almost the whole bitcoin community as a centralized solution.
Plus if they are willing to accept the trade-off. I believe exchanges that want large transfers between them should join the federation of BTC-issued tokens in the Liquid sidechain.
The other side of that is that can cause exchanges to become more "bank like"
All you need is of of them to start.
There will be no BTC transferred till certain limits have been hit or till the end of the day everything else would just be a journal entry.
Think about it. If I am going to send from a to b all they have to do is note it in their database someplace.
Then if you send from b to a it's just notes BTC going the other way and deducts from the total owed.
Overnight they settle up, and send in one tx.
Unless the amount goes over over a certain level, then they trigger a settlement.
You now have Chase and CitiBank but with BTC instead of $.
Others want to join in. Look banking 2.0 same as 1.0 just with BTC.
OK it's a worst case scenario and probably not going to happen but.....
-Dave
But it is happening, https://blockstream.com/liquid/
There are more than 20 exchanges in the "federation". The trade-off is "OK" for exchange to exchange transfers if you ask me, doesn't need your Bitcoins to be traded to altcoins for "faster/cheaper transfers".
Big player with proper (cyper-) risk & compliance ppl will never allow such - they ll go industrial central clearing / custody. LN is a joke
Plus if they are willing to accept the trade-off. I believe exchanges that want large transfers between them should join the federation of BTC-issued tokens in the Liquid sidechain.
The other side of that is that can cause exchanges to become more "bank like"
All you need is of of them to start.
There will be no BTC transferred till certain limits have been hit or till the end of the day everything else would just be a journal entry.
Think about it. If I am going to send from a to b all they have to do is note it in their database someplace.
Then if you send from b to a it's just notes BTC going the other way and deducts from the total owed.
Overnight they settle up, and send in one tx.
Unless the amount goes over over a certain level, then they trigger a settlement.
You now have Chase and CitiBank but with BTC instead of $.
Others want to join in. Look banking 2.0 same as 1.0 just with BTC.
OK it's a worst case scenario and probably not going to happen but.....
-Dave
But it is happening, https://blockstream.com/liquid/
There are more than 20 exchanges in the "federation". The trade-off is "OK" for exchange to exchange transfers if you ask me, doesn't need your Bitcoins to be traded to altcoins for "faster/cheaper transfers".
Because in the case of exchanges it starts to tie up more funds.
If 2 exchanges have large channels open between them then they can't use those funds for regular on-chain withdraws.
Then you add on a 3rd and 4th and you tie up even more funds.
Lets say exchange 5 opens, but does not have lightning. But it has a price higher enough or lower enough to make a lot of people want to move. Do you start closing channels. That makes for more TX fees. And I see a logistical nightmare.
And....for security a majority of the exchanges funds should be in cold or multi-sig wallets. Lightning by definition is a hot wallet.
-Dave
Exchanges charge for withdrawal fees today, and they may charge transfer fees when transferring via LN that are in line with what the exchange will anticipate paying for closing tx fees divided by the number of transactions the LN expects to be able to make before having to close the channel.
Exchanges should keep most of their coin in cold storage, and you are correct coin in an open LN channel is part of a hot wallet. They could have the closing transactions go to their cold storage wallet, even if this will add minimal additional security. Having open LN channels will be something exchanges would have to manage.
Plus if they are willing to accept the trade-off. I believe exchanges that want large transfers between them should join the federation of BTC-issued tokens in the Liquid sidechain.
The other side of that is that can cause exchanges to become more "bank like"
All you need is of of them to start.
There will be no BTC transferred till certain limits have been hit or till the end of the day everything else would just be a journal entry.
Think about it. If I am going to send from a to b all they have to do is note it in their database someplace.
Then if you send from b to a it's just notes BTC going the other way and deducts from the total owed.
Overnight they settle up, and send in one tx.
Unless the amount goes over over a certain level, then they trigger a settlement.
You now have Chase and CitiBank but with BTC instead of $.
Others want to join in. Look banking 2.0 same as 1.0 just with BTC.
OK it's a worst case scenario and probably not going to happen but.....
-Dave
I would be more concerned if exchanges did what you describe and it resulted in fractional reserves.
IMO, exchanges should use large LN channels amongst each other to facilitate transfers between exchanges. Exchange A could allow their customers to send coin to their accounts at Exchange B instantly, and the two exchanges could instantly settle the transaction via their open LN channel. There would be no need for the customer to generate/provide a LN invoice, only their account details of their other exchange account.
Because in the case of exchanges it starts to tie up more funds.
If 2 exchanges have large channels open between them then they can't use those funds for regular on-chain withdraws.
Then you add on a 3rd and 4th and you tie up even more funds.
Lets say exchange 5 opens, but does not have lightning. But it has a price higher enough or lower enough to make a lot of people want to move. Do you start closing channels. That makes for more TX fees. And I see a logistical nightmare.
And....for security a majority of the exchanges funds should be in cold or multi-sig wallets. Lightning by definition is a hot wallet.
-Dave
Plus if they are willing to accept the trade-off. I believe exchanges that want large transfers between them should join the federation of BTC-issued tokens in the Liquid sidechain.
The other side of that is that can cause exchanges to become more "bank like"
All you need is of of them to start.
There will be no BTC transferred till certain limits have been hit or till the end of the day everything else would just be a journal entry.
Think about it. If I am going to send from a to b all they have to do is note it in their database someplace.
Then if you send from b to a it's just notes BTC going the other way and deducts from the total owed.
Overnight they settle up, and send in one tx.
Unless the amount goes over over a certain level, then they trigger a settlement.
You now have Chase and CitiBank but with BTC instead of $.
Others want to join in. Look banking 2.0 same as 1.0 just with BTC.
OK it's a worst case scenario and probably not going to happen but.....
-Dave
I would be more concerned if exchanges did what you describe and it resulted in fractional reserves.
IMO, exchanges should use large LN channels amongst each other to facilitate transfers between exchanges. Exchange A could allow their customers to send coin to their accounts at Exchange B instantly, and the two exchanges could instantly settle the transaction via their open LN channel. There would be no need for the customer to generate/provide a LN invoice, only their account details of their other exchange account.
Plus if they are willing to accept the trade-off. I believe exchanges that want large transfers between them should join the federation of BTC-issued tokens in the Liquid sidechain.
The other side of that is that can cause exchanges to become more "bank like"
All you need is of of them to start.
There will be no BTC transferred till certain limits have been hit or till the end of the day everything else would just be a journal entry.
Think about it. If I am going to send from a to b all they have to do is note it in their database someplace.
Then if you send from b to a it's just notes BTC going the other way and deducts from the total owed.
Overnight they settle up, and send in one tx.
Unless the amount goes over over a certain level, then they trigger a settlement.
You now have Chase and CitiBank but with BTC instead of $.
Others want to join in. Look banking 2.0 same as 1.0 just with BTC.
OK it's a worst case scenario and probably not going to happen but.....
-Dave
Kraken has just announced that they are going to enable withdrawals and deposits over the Lightning Network in the first half of the next year.
They still have to start hiring a team to start LN implementation, but it's something 
I'm curious what limits they'll choose: they probably don't allow withdrawing very low amounts and I don't expect very low fees either. They don't even allow trading cents for performance reasons.
I don't think exchanges will have especially high fees either. Deposit/withdrawal fees charged by exchanges are generally in line with actual costs associated with receiving/sending a deposit/withdrawals.
Quote
Do you think it will set off a chain reaction among other exchanges?
Probably not, but if that happens arbitrage trading is going to be fun if you can make large-transfers between exchanges in a few seconds.Plus if they are willing to accept the trade-off. I believe exchanges that want large transfers between them should join the federation of BTC-issued tokens in the Liquid sidechain.
Kraken has just announced that they are going to enable withdrawals and deposits over the Lightning Network in the first half of the next year.
They still have to start hiring a team to start LN implementation, but it's something I'm curious what limits they'll choose: they probably don't allow withdrawing very low amounts and I don't expect very low fees either. They don't even allow trading cents for performance reasons.
I don't think exchanges will have especially high fees either. Deposit/withdrawal fees charged by exchanges are generally in line with actual costs associated with receiving/sending a deposit/withdrawals.
Quote
Do you think it will set off a chain reaction among other exchanges?
Probably not, but if that happens arbitrage trading is going to be fun if you can make large-transfers between exchanges in a few seconds.Kraken has just announced that they are going to enable withdrawals and deposits over the Lightning Network in the first half of the next year.
They still have to start hiring a team to start LN implementation, but it's something I'm curious what limits they'll choose: they probably don't allow withdrawing very low amounts and I don't expect very low fees either. They don't even allow trading cents for performance reasons.
Quote
Do you think it will set off a chain reaction among other exchanges?
Probably not, but if that happens arbitrage trading is going to be fun if you can make large-transfers between exchanges in a few seconds.Just because of what I said before about fees I can't see them just walking away from the profit center of withdrawal fees like that.
That or there are going to be some stilly restrictions and rules put in place.
Or there is another angel I am missing.
-Dave
Kraken has just announced that they are going to enable withdrawals and deposits over the Lightning Network in the first half of the next year.
They still have to start hiring a team to start LN implementation, but it's something I'm curious what limits they'll choose: they probably don't allow withdrawing very low amounts and I don't expect very low fees either. They don't even allow trading cents for performance reasons.
Quote
Do you think it will set off a chain reaction among other exchanges?
Probably not, but if that happens arbitrage trading is going to be fun if you can make large-transfers between exchanges in a few seconds. 
Shower thought. The reason why exchanges have never/will never implement Lightning for lower fees is not because of UI/UX issues, or the absence of business development for Lightning. It's because exchanges want more altcoin usage, and to collect fees from trading.
Kraken has just announced that they are going to enable withdrawals and deposits over the Lightning Network in the first half of the next year. Do you think it will set off a chain reaction among other exchanges?
Jump to: