The Lightning Network FAQ - page 51.

PrimeNumber7

copper member

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1901

Amazon Prime Member #7

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 03, 2020, 03:18:11 AM

Quote

There will be no need for rounding down millisatoshis on channel closure once we increase the number of decimal places on-chain. It is bound to happen some day.

That would be bigger than the scaling debate.

I would be surprised if this was the case.

Increasing the max block size was one solution to a technical problem that it was unclear was an actual problem in the present. Increasing transaction value precision will be the only solution (that I can think of) to a problem, and it will be very obvious if it is a problem, as it would be reflected in the price of bitcoin.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 03, 2020, 03:18:11 AM

Quote

There will be no need for rounding down millisatoshis on channel closure once we increase the number of decimal places on-chain. It is bound to happen some day.

That would be bigger than the scaling debate.

I doubt it'd be bigger than scaling debate since the debate itself should be on very technical level (e.g. whether older software can process higher float precision and higher transaction size due to higher float precision) rather than politic or ideology.

Maybe you're right, but if it requires a hard fork, and it requires that the whole community to come together behind a, not "life or death", upgrade for Bitcoin that could contentious, then I believe it will cause another big debate.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: Rath_ on December 02, 2020, 06:54:14 AM

There will be no need for rounding down millisatoshis on channel closure once we increase the number of decimal places on-chain.

If that happens, LN can go to microsatoshis so the "problem" remains. But I don't think it'll ever happen on-chain. At the moment, there are no decimals on-chain, only satoshis (no "Bitcoins").
But more importantly, 1 satoshi is small enough no matter what happens. And even if you were to create a system that requires millions of sub-satoshi-payments to make it worth using such small values, it won't happen on-chain because of block space.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Rath_ on December 02, 2020, 06:54:14 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 02, 2020, 06:29:55 AM

It's just a matter of record keeping offchain?

For the time being, yes.

OK, thank you. I tried searching. I believe more ELI5 educational information on how Lightning nodes keep transaction records should be more available for the newbies, and non-technical people like me.

Quote

There will be no need for rounding down millisatoshis on channel closure once we increase the number of decimal places on-chain. It is bound to happen some day.

That would be bigger than the scaling debate.

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: LoyceV on December 02, 2020, 08:04:41 AM

Quote from: DaveF on December 02, 2020, 07:54:40 AM

Woke up, has a cup of coffee and looking at the console. 5 small channels were opened with large fees and then closed with small fees so it's going to be a bit before the funds clear.

I once tried to open a channel with low fee, which didn't confirm in time. The node then closed the channel with a much higher fee, basically doing CPFP. When connecting to the node, I had no option to choose the fee to close the channel.
I'm surprised yours allows that.
Back to your case: what would happen if the low-fee closing transaction doesn't confirm in time? Does that give the client any chance to force close the channel with detrimental effects on your node?

If it times out my node should CPFP the channel like your did.
With LND from the command line you can specify the fee or just use the default.
Same if you are using Ride The Lightning. You can pick your fee and it broadcasts and then you wait.

-Dave

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: DaveF on December 02, 2020, 07:54:40 AM

Woke up, has a cup of coffee and looking at the console. 5 small channels were opened with large fees and then closed with small fees so it's going to be a bit before the funds clear.

I once tried to open a channel with low fee, which didn't confirm in time. The node then closed the channel with a much higher fee, basically doing CPFP. When connecting to the node, I had no option to choose the fee to close the channel.
I'm surprised yours allows that.
Back to your case: what would happen if the low-fee closing transaction doesn't confirm in time? Does that give the client any chance to force close the channel with detrimental effects on your node?

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

I would like to say what the actual fuck?

When fees were low this weekend I sent some funds to my node, around about the time I made this post:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.55715316

Anyway, I opened 3 channels and wound up having someone route a somewhat large payment through and last night I decided to close it because I wanted to try something else today. I closed it with a somewhat low fee and figured it would happen overnight. Which it did.

Woke up, has a cup of coffee and looking at the console. 5 small channels were opened with large fees and then closed with small fees so it's going to be a bit before the funds clear.

This is the 2nd time it's been done to me and it's on a node I do not advertise is mine and is on an IP that does not come back to me in any public way, so I know it's not a "screw with Dave" thing. I can't be be only one, at least I don't think I can be.

With the "yeah I know ask on github" bit I am asking here 1st is there anyway I can set in the LND config the minimum you have to pay in sat/b to open or close a channel to my node?

Thanks,
Dave

Rath_

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 3139

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 02, 2020, 06:29:55 AM

It's just a matter of record keeping offchain?

For the time being, yes. There will be no need for rounding down millisatoshis on channel closure once we increase the number of decimal places on-chain. It is bound to happen some day.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Honestly it's bit odd that all outputs are rounded down rather than one is rounded up and the other one is rounded down.

I am quite sure I have read an explanation for this. I will try to find it.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: DaveF on December 01, 2020, 07:05:28 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 01, 2020, 06:03:02 AM

Can anyone give the explanation on why, and how the Lightning Network can decimal places from sats to millisats again? It's disinformation campaign by flat-Earthers and trolls again. They probably know newbies are lurking.

I shall use every opportunity to say NO, and give the right information out.

Not sure what you are asking.

A simple explanation. franky1 is gaslighting everyone again that, "because of msats, which doesn't exist onchain, then LN transactions are made of tokens issued/IOUs".

Quote

Between nodes that have channels between them keep accounting records down to millisats.
When closing the channels back to onchain funds they go away. You really can't trust they will exist "in the real world"

Thank you. It's just a matter of record keeping offchain?

Rath_

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 3139

Quote from: ?? on ??

Shouldn't it be simple rounding (with satoshi unit) when the channel is closed? One's balance will pass through ceil function and another one will pass floor function.

It is as simple as that. All outputs of a commitment transaction are rounded down to whole satoshis, though (source).

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 01, 2020, 06:03:02 AM

Can anyone give the explanation on why, and how the Lightning Network can decimal places from sats to millisats again? It's disinformation campaign by flat-Earthers and trolls again. They probably know newbies are lurking.

I shall use every opportunity to say NO, and give the right information out.

Not sure what you are asking.
Between nodes that have channels between them keep accounting records down to millisats.
When closing the channels back to onchain funds they go away. You really can't trust they will exist "in the real world"

If BTC goes to a very high number, then it might matter. For now the value between $0.0001948 and $0.0000001948 is not worth the bother to deal with.

-Dave

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Can anyone give the explanation on why, and how the Lightning Network can decimal places from sats to millisats again? It's disinformation campaign by flat-Earthers and trolls again. They probably know newbies are lurking.

I shall use every opportunity to say NO, and give the right information out.

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

Question that has probably been answered before someplace I just can't find it.
Is there a way to know what the minimum a peers wants to open a channel with, without trying to open a channel 1st.
I want to query what their minimum and get an answer without attempting to open a channel.

Reason: I have a node with 0 funds in it available, I have several channels open already and want to open another. I don't want to send .005 to it to then find out that they want a minimum of .01. That's just a waste of TX fees. I also don't want to send .025 if they are happy with .02 since that just means I am going to be leaving BTC just sitting on my node.

And with no funds LND will not even let you try to open a channel.

-Dave

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 21, 2020, 11:49:40 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 21, 2020, 12:21:53 AM

I believe the "race to the bottom" hypothesis holds IF capital is unlimited, and if there wasn't an opportunity cost.

neither of those things matter, that's like saying "people avoid keeping cash in their pockets when they leave the house, because they could've invested it better and made more money"

people selling newspapers in kiosks don't accept ACH transactions from your savings account, because it's inconvenient.

Lightning is about convenience of use, not optimum investing.

From our standpoint, yes. But from a serious long term LN node maintainer's standpoint, it might be different.

Quote

and so, if this means big nodes can't ever make money, and the LN will just be like the cash system (people transferring around everything from their weekly takings, down to the pennies lost under their couches), again, what's not to like?

That wasn't the point. The point is about limited capital, labor and specialization, and about a natural gravitation towards a practical incentives structure to maintain the network.

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 21, 2020, 11:49:40 AM

and so, if this means big nodes can't ever make money, and the LN will just be like the cash system (people transferring around everything from their weekly takings, down to the pennies lost under their couches), again, what's not to like?

With multi-path payments working, it's not as big a deal as it was.
But still, you don't want to rely on people providing a free service so others can make payments.

In an ideal world yes, but here in the real world businesses want to make money.

Do you really not want to have any large hubs with a large amount of liquidity?

As I said a few posts up, I don't think most people here really care about making any money.
But for a commercial business to tie up funds without the potential for some profit, it's going to be a tough sell.

-Dave

PrimeNumber7

copper member

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1901

Amazon Prime Member #7

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 21, 2020, 11:49:40 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 21, 2020, 12:21:53 AM

I believe the "race to the bottom" hypothesis holds IF capital is unlimited, and if there wasn't an opportunity cost.

neither of those things matter, that's like saying "people avoid keeping cash in their pockets when they leave the house, because they could've invested it better and made more money"

people selling newspapers in kiosks don't accept ACH transactions from your savings account, because it's inconvenient.

Lightning is about convenience of use, not optimum investing.

and so, if this means big nodes can't ever make money, and the LN will just be like the cash system (people transferring around everything from their weekly takings, down to the pennies lost under their couches), again, what's not to like?

People will typically carry around modest amounts of money in their pockets, and not significantly more than they expect to need. One reason for this is the risk they will lose some or all their money.

I believe the same principle applies to LN node operators. There is not a zero risk of running a LN node. The risks are similar to having a hot wallet on their computer. Many businesses and bitcoin holders will keep their coin on an offline wallet, sacrificing convenience for security.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3083

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 21, 2020, 12:21:53 AM

I believe the "race to the bottom" hypothesis holds IF capital is unlimited, and if there wasn't an opportunity cost.

neither of those things matter, that's like saying "people avoid keeping cash in their pockets when they leave the house, because they could've invested it better and made more money"

people selling newspapers in kiosks don't accept ACH transactions from your savings account, because it's inconvenient.

Lightning is about convenience of use, not optimum investing.

and so, if this means big nodes can't ever make money, and the LN will just be like the cash system (people transferring around everything from their weekly takings, down to the pennies lost under their couches), again, what's not to like?

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 21, 2020, 12:21:53 AM

OR invest in something else that could profit more. Opportunity cost.

Would you have pulled funds from all your nodes if you were making profit?

Opportunity cost is a tough one to call. Would depend on many factors.

If there were making a profit, depends on the amount.
I moved ~$400 out of LN. So if I was making $0.25 a day, probably yeah still would have.
$2. a day would have to think about it.
Some where in between would depend on many factors.

But LN nodes with that little amount of BTC don't make that much money so it's kind of a moot point.
I put myself in the tech nerd side. So I run them for fun. And are operated a such. A few satoshi here or there that they throw off are a bonus.

-Dave

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 20, 2020, 11:02:21 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 20, 2020, 04:49:39 AM

For the sake of debate. Don't you believe that those two, "profit as a canard", and "taking the competing part seriously" are contradictory?

yes, but that didn't stop you and DaveF lamenting the fact that profit is a canard up-thread, made more painful by clinging to the possibility that you could compete seriously

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the market dynamics of the LN are an absolute race to the bottom: if anyone tries to charge higher fees than their operating costs, some upstart will try to undercut them, in the belief that they can push their competitor/s out of the marketplace by running at a loss "short term". This will probably be a mistake, but it won't stop them trying. When everyone wants to participate (because fast cheap transactions), there will always be transactions to route, and always a procession of people thinking they can use routing as a way to earn income... and people with alot of BTC in channels that want to troll such profit-seekers by undermining their ability to make any money. Thusly, the margins are cut to nothing, and the balance of routing rewards trends to zero.

Sorry to burst the bubble, but I think that secretly, you already knew. Really though, what's not to like?

There wasn't a "bubble" bursted, but I am always open to new possbilities, and new theories, regarding the fee-market in LN.

I believe the "race to the bottom" hypothesis holds IF capital is unlimited, and if there wasn't an opportunity cost.

Quote from: DaveF on November 20, 2020, 04:01:16 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 20, 2020, 11:02:21 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 20, 2020, 04:49:39 AM

For the sake of debate. Don't you believe that those two, "profit as a canard", and "taking the competing part seriously" are contradictory?

yes, but that didn't stop you and DaveF lamenting the fact that profit is a canard up-thread, made more painful by clinging to the possibility that you could compete seriously

I pulled my funds from all my nodes without a thought because I wanted to spend the BTC on something else. And since there is no real profit to me made, it was just easier for me to do that then pulling from cold storage.

OR invest in something else that could profit more. Opportunity cost.

Would you have pulled funds from all your nodes if you were making profit?

Timelord2067

legendary

Activity: 3696

Merit: 2219

💲🏎️💨🚓

Quote from: DaveF on November 20, 2020, 04:01:16 PM

...

Hi, I can still do top up's of your LN by sending funds from my Eclair wallet if you would like to send back via on-chain 1:1 - the only thing I ask is that you pay your own on-chain TX fees (this would enable you to make just one on-chain TX but top up multiple LN)

I'll be back on in about ten - twelve hours.

Topic: The Lightning Network FAQ - page 51. (Read 33677 times)