Topic: The Lightning Network FAQ - page 57. (Read 32079 times)

If I can trust exchange XYZ I don't have to withdraw my $280 in LN funds, I'll just leave it there and pay services directly. That way funds move from one well-connected node to another one, and I don't have any problems with incoming capacity.

Businesses that accept LN today often advertise the maximum they can receive via LN. I don't see any reason why businesses wouldn't be able to advertise the max they can send via LN.

---

It would probably be a good idea to have LN clients be able to split up invoices so a payment can go through multiple routes, and the transaction will only go through if all invoices are paid.

For example, due to the various channel states between Bob and Allice, the maximum amount Bob can send to Allice is 0.05, even though Allice has >0.1 inbound capacity and Bob has >0.1 outbound capacity. Allice could send an invoice to Bob for 0.06 that Bob pays that gets split into two (or more) invoices.

I actually made a comment about this in the gambling section, because I asked why they accepted lightning for deposits but not withdrawals. They replied working on it but difficult.


For trivial amounts of money it's not a big deal if someone has to wait for everyone to figure out what is wrong, for larger amounts it is a big deal.
But.....
For trivial amounts it's not worth the time and effort to setup lightning for them. For larger amounts I could see it being a support nightmare.
How many posts here do you think we would see with people complaining that they were not getting 0.025BTC funds from exchange XYZ while the exchange is trying to explain the largest channel they have open is .0245BTC

-Dave

I think the main and realistic problem currently is that it isn't fully developed and hasn't had the time to prove its security.

There are a bunch of reasons different companies don't get involved, they'll be judged for everything.

On top of that it took quite a while for segwit to be adopted and this protocol requires companies to host a channel/watchtower in one location and send all their outputs out through that.
Not to mention, as soon as an exchange starts accepting the lightning network, therell be a lot of people trying to use it. And we do have more nodes than bitcoin mainnet (afaik) but each node is kinda like a miner and we probably don't have more devices signalling for the security of the ln (not that we need to get too close to that).

Exchanges work based on competition I think binance are investing in lightning research at least, so the other major large players will be doing the same...

What's the technical problem with Lightning? What is making the exchanges hesitant from integrating it to complement their service? Plus are there business development people behind Lightning Labs to handle onboarding the exchanges and other institutions?

@jackg, thank you. That will be useful when and only when I fix what I think it's some connection issues with my node. I have created a thread about it but still waiting on some help.

Thanks

I created a list of forum users here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54940969

You could also use a site like this to find more: https://explorer.acinq.co/

Hello.

I was trying to find some site like LNBig to open a channel with me so that I have some inbound liquidity but their site always says there there are no free funds to open any channels. I also tried to request, by email, an inbound channel to PeerNode site. But after 3 days I have no answer from them.

Where else can I find someone to open a channel with me so that I can receive satoshis via my c-lightning node? I have Bluewallet installed in my mobile phone and I know it is not compatible with c-lightning, so I have installed Spark wallet in my desktop. So, now, I want to send the sats from Bluewallet to my Sparkwallet and then, eventually, send the sats to BTC address I own.

No not on mainnet anyway.

I'm sure there's some testnet faucet that gives free bitcoin if you wanted to test out invoices there though (preloading a testnet channel).

Thanks a lot jackg, for your reply.

One more thing. I can't wait to start experimenting with my node, but for 5 questions I get the answers, a few more questions arise.

Can I just create an invoice for the sake of experimenting, without opening a channel?

This'll be specific to the node but generally:
Addresses are for receiving funds from the main chain - so it can still act like a regular bitcoin wallet.
Invoices are for lightning transactions.



Invoices on their own are a bit like sending a parcel.

It includes the address + what you want to be sent in a string of characters. They don't have a bearing on channel closures but if someone signs to consent to sending those funds they're then transferred by a series of contracts to their final state that satisfies the invoice.



Yes it is possible to see the address on the chain, if you've opened a channel just look at either the funding transaction or search the address with funds in it on blockchain.com or btc.com and you'll see your funds are transferred there.

YOU and your node control the PKs. A thing is sent called a "Commitment transaction" CT which allows your channel to have a single state you both agree on.

If the other node goes offline, and I've had that happen, you merely broadcast your last commitment transaction and your funds are restored back to your wallet.


This is what commitment transactions are for (opening and closing channels). Invoices only tell someone how much you want them to send, where you want them to send it and how long they have to send it.

Hello everyone.

I'm just starting to learn about Lightning Network.
I'm running a full bitcoin node and I decided to try c-lightning from Elements project in Debian Buster.

I have a few questions that I know are quite noob, but if I understand them right from the beginning, my learning process will be much faster and reliable and also less prone to error.

I'm using solely the command line because I consider that I can learn in much more deep the way the network works and get used/known to the existing commands rather than just use front ends for the node and just get what they give me.

So, I already connected to a few nodes with success behind Tor. I also connected to a firend's node. So, connectivity is all good.

Questions are more theoretical, I guess.

For instance:
1.(a) Do I need any address to receive payments? If we don't need an address, (b) why does c-lightning software has a command to get a new address? If we need one, (c) can it be a bech32?
2. I'm still not sure if invoices are just a name for the action of closing a channel or what is it or how it relates to closing a channel and receiving funds (in a bech32 address, ultimately??).
3. As far as I read, when we open a channel, we implicitly have to fund it. Those funds will remain in a multi-signature address. (a) Is this accurate? (b)If so, can we see that multi-signature address contents in a Blockchain explorer like Blockchair, for instance? (c) I assume that the Lightning Network protocol implicitly controls the PKs of this multi-signature address an that when both parties agree in closing the channel, the software automatically "inserts" both PKs so that the channel can be closed or each one of us needs to provide it manually? (d) Can we see that multi-signature address or is it somehow embedded in the software one is using?
4. An invoice is something we can create separately and then present to any channel/node so that we can send/receive a payment or is it something that is also inherent to opening/closing a channel?

Well, I think most of these questions would be answered by experimenting, but I'm still not confident to try it on my own.

Hope I can get some clarification. I have already read a few links I was given in another thread. FAQ and a kind of an Intro to the LN with some basic concepts.

Nothing in the logs showing anything.
This one is actually not on an RPi but a Virtaulbox VM that I use for testing.
It's why I keep no funds on it and don't do any work on it.

I just use it to test new versions and then if nothing else happens put them on the "live" nodes.

Not going to have time for a few days so not going to worry about it. Once I can carve out two hours I'll open an issue on github.

-Dave

I had this with C-lightning 0.9.1 recently, but it was due to a vast number of channel updates all being gossiped at once. lnd did have a bug where cpu usage got pinned to 100%, but I thought they fixed it in 0.10

So maybe check the lnd logs that it's not expected network behavior overwhelming your hardware (you're using an rpi IIRC).

With the standard, I know to ask on github.
Has anyone had an issue after installing 0.11 of random 100% cpu utilization?
My node just stops and goes to 100% for minutes on end. Then everything goes back to normal.
No funds in it at the moment so I'll probably roll back to 0.10

-Dave

It might be an LND exclusive feature. See the following quote.


Apparently, payments larger than the limit are split into smaller chunks. I am not sure how c-lightning and Eclair would behave in such a situation.

If I got it correctly payments are still limited to 0.0429 4967 295 BTC (2^32-1 msat).

From BOLT #2, update_add_htlc

All major implementations now support "wumbo". It allows node operators to create and accept channels larger than 0.16777215 BTC and payments larger than 0.04294967 BTC. While the vast majority of users won't "go wumbo", operators of large nodes might benefit from it by having to rebalance their channels less often.

Instructions on how to enable "wumbo": LND, c-lightning, Eclair

I'm trying it with 15p because theoretically it could work and may do so I want to try it... My thought is that for a while therell only be one person funding a channel so it might just be credited but it's unlikely - I'm still just curious though.

I'll post my results if it works but even if it does it might just rely on individual configurations.

---

Edit: not entirely sure what happened to t, I woke up with about 200 notifications overnight so I don't remember what it said but it said something like "suspicious activity noticed" as a notification from elcair - I think it might have gone through on the other side and my side just refused to sign for it as a security measure.

No, this is called splice-in (or out - same but decrease channel capacity). See above, it's theoretically possible but not yet spec'ed.