Topic: The Lightning Network FAQ - page 76. (Read 32058 times)

Since i know the fact all software related to LN is still on development phase & i had hard time when try LN on testnet, i won't.
I might try it if someone can confirm the software support Tor/SOCKS5 proxy though.


Technically it's 4 million weight unit, not 4MB (even though near 4MB with very specific transaction format) or 1MB (even though old client see it as 1MB)

ok, that's not really true, but let's assume it is.....



so, make up your mind

either 1MB (you're wrong, it's 4MB) is not enough, or Bitcoin has fewer transactions and spare capacity.


whatever, Lightning still isn't mature in tech terms or in liquidity. On-chain scaling tech (taproot, schnorr etc) is still in the pipeline. Rushing these things risks disasters, and then the network effect in Bitcoin really could be damaged. Hence why I'm talking upthread about how LND should focus on quality rather than quantity.


Please don't reply, we're already off-topic, and you're already wrong in so many ways.

It stopped growing, look bitcoin transaction number history, we are in 2019 and we dont make as much transactions as in 2017, we are stucked by 2 years, transactions = to price grows = Metcalf Law, other coins are beeing used much more and growing like USDT:

https://www.coindesk.com/tether-usdt-russia-china-importers

1 MB its to little block size for the world, we need to upgrade sooner or later, if it was sooner bitcoin would be doing more transactions than in 2017 and the price would be bigger too.

Bill Gates said one time 640kb of memory should be fine for everybody, today he says was the worst affirmation of his life, the same are doing the guys of bitcoin core if they think 1MB will be sufficient too.

I believe that's the same narrative some used-to-be-great people in Bitcoin said back in 2015 or 2016. They FUD that Bitcoin's "blockchain of small blocks" will be so unusable, mempool so large, waiting times so long, fees so high, that it will be dead in four years. It didn't happen.

Call it off-loading, but LN will reduce load on-chain, and increase utility.

I guess that someone will come up with a better scaling solution by 2140. The Lightning Network channels still need to broadcast transactions when closing and opening channels. Would you pay a 1000 satoshi fee for sending 1 satoshi on-chain (assuming it was not treated as dust)?


I have a few channels on my LND node and Eclair Mobile. If that's okay with you then send me a payment request here. Note that you need to have incoming capacity.

Edit: Ah, you want me to see if I am going to encounter the same problem as yours. Sure, will post results later.

https://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2019/06/19/mobile-app.html

Can you install and put $10 in and then lets try it?

Can you please install this APP: https://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2019/06/19/mobile-app.html

Put $10 and try it with me doing some transactions to each other?

To control spamming attacks we have the fee, miners would love spammers, they will not love LN when the rewards end.

Where they will go take money if everybody uses LN?
One on-chain transaction in 9 years after 3 halvings will make each on-chain transaction pays one incredible fee, so LN will not solve the problem of on-chain high fees, can even create a bigger problem in future!

https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/pull/2842#issuecomment-515336677

I see this (as I said already) as something of a prioritization issue; LND has far more devs, and a far larger project than c-lightning. If they spent more time fixing bugs than developing new features, we might see fewer of these compatibility issues. This is not the only time this sort of thing has happened, just a recent example.

In fairness, I doubt anyone's implementation is perfect. But as the most popular Lightning client, LND have arguably more responsibility to ensure their software is a good neighbor, which means being more cautious overall.


Instead, the (superficial) impression I get is that the LND team are trying to go too fast. There's a risk that a strategy like that will backfire badly if they make mistakes that are any more serious.

Do you have any articles or messages related to it? I am working on a thread about implementations and wallets, and this piece of information could be really important for people who are thinking which one they should choose.

Maybe it won't be a success, but saying it now is too early in my opinion. Lightning can be used as something to mitigate the long waiting times when the mempool is being flooded by a spammer, or some bad actor. If merchants want "business as usual" during on-chain spamming attacks, they should accept Lightning.

you've been lucky, LND is not the most reliable Lightning software available, and it also causes compatibility problems with other Lightning implementations (which wastes the time of devs who must mitigate for LND's problems). Lightning Labs devs admit to this, yet continue to develop new features instead of focusing on fixing old bugs.

People who tacitly promoted LND without mentioning the alternatives share some responsibility for this situation, but ultimately it's Lightning Labs that are most responsible, their whole development strategy suggests they want to expand their influence, instead of producing good software.

I have used a few Lightning Network clients and so far I didn't have any problems. This includes LND which is also developed by Lightning Labs.


You can close that channel forcefully even if the other party is not responding. Usually, you have to wait one day before the closing transaction will be broadcast. As for receiving money, take a look here. Did you even bother to make some research?


Link or it didn't happen.


Miners still need to mine transactions which are broadcast when channels are funded and settled.


You don't have to connect to large HUBs. You can open a channel directly to merchant's node. You won't be charged anything for each transaction.


Congratulations! You have just invented sharding.

Lightning Network will not work, have you tried Lightning Labs APP?

Its a SCAM, they took my money and dont give it back, its impossible to take the money out to a normal onchain address, the money i can spend in LN its much less than i put in part of the money stays freezed in chanels and we cant even receive money, they say we can only waste in online games, but they dont show where and any LN transactions for another user dont work!

I complaint in support twitter, they answer one time evasively and now dont care about it.

LN will never be solution, Satoshi said that onchain transactions will support miners in the future, with LN there is no fees for the real miners that support blockchain, with time the fee of one ON-CHAIN transaction will be huge.

LN will have low fees but On-Chain will have a impossible fee to pay and who will rule the LN chanels will be the same as banks, we are not in control of our money!

We need to think about a scalling solution that splits the blocks in blockchain groups, like group A, B, C and so on, that number of groups will be bigger with the number of nodes running, that way the size of block will be always 1MB by node, node type A, node type B and so on, they could be splitted in many 1 MB parts of a block an tested online like SPV wallets.

I found two Lightning Network software reviews on Twitter for C-Lightning, and Eclair.

https://twitter.com/leonjohnson/status/1154093500515987456

https://twitter.com/leonjohnson/status/1154422184921767936

The reviews were made a developer, giving us a perspective on software fiddling. Haha.

Have you tried disabling Windows Firewall and Windows Defender (or any other AV software)? If this doesn't work then there is something wrong with your router settings. How many connections does your Bitcoin Core have?


It seems that you have already set the txindex to 1. Instead of setting it in the config file, try adding it as a launch parameter.

I seem to be having some trouble connecting Eclair to the network (to open a channel and run a node). I've followed the github installation guide, step by step; but for reasons unknown, every channel I try to create gets timed out/disconnected. Apart from that, I seem to not be finding any other channels (All channels tab is with a big 0).

I already had the core client fully updated; and that one seems to be working fine for the moment. The only "issue" I have noticed between some youtube tutorials I've seen; is that when creating the bitcoin.conf file on core and restarting; I didn't get any "You need to rebuild the database....) message

Hope you can give me a hand

There minimum channel reserve is only 1%. That's probably enough for a channel with high balance, but for my experimental channel with only 1.x mBTC, it's too low. So (I think) the total sending capacity varies depending on the average Bitcoin fee around that time (and I think that's the part you were missing).

This makes sense I just couldn't imagine there's no route with enough capacity (it was just around 0.00003 BTC) from my channel (connected to a well-connected node) to the destination (which I assume to be well-connected too).

It's not a problem for an experimental system of course, so I assume this will be improved in future updates.

Watch towers have to be configured manually for each node on a separate machine. They have been recently introduced in the latest LND update so that's why they haven't been mentioned in the article.


Sending capacity = Current channel balance - total can receive - minimum channel reserve (that's how I would calculate it, but I am still missing something). Each time you send a transaction multiple routes are calculated and the most efficient one is chosen. Total possible amount to send differs for each destination node. The problem you described is a liquidity issue; it's not Eclair's fault.

I'm quite certain now: In Eclair, the amount of LN funds that I can send depends on the Bitcoin network fees! A few days ago, had almost no sending capacity left, and received 30000 sat, and could send just over 30000 sat.. The next day, my sending capacity was reduced to about 24000 sat. I'd say that makes a non-custodial wallet like BlueWallet a better choice for using LN with a small balance, as it doesn't reserve anything for closing-fees.

It also looks like the sending capacity in Eclair isn't that accurate: I can't send all at once, but I could send multiple smaller payments.

I don't blame LN, which is still experimental, but it's good to note these things