I was thinking of re-creating the Lightning Network Discussion thread but it would have to be self-moderated. I don't want to be accussed of keeping the discussion biased.
If you set clear guidelines in the OP, that should be okay. I'd do it for you, but I don't feel like I know or understand enough of LN to host the thread. 
Topic: The Lightning Network FAQ - page 77. (Read 32058 times)
BitMex Research published an interesting article in which they examine all possible Lightning Network channel closure scenarios.
I don't mind. I was thinking of re-creating the Lightning Network Discussion thread but it would have to be self-moderated. I don't want to be accussed of keeping the discussion biased.
-snip
I don't mind. I was thinking of re-creating the Lightning Network Discussion thread but it would have to be self-moderated. I don't want to be accussed of keeping the discussion biased.
Can I post Pollo Feed here? I've just had my daughter feed some chickens using the Lightning Network!
It's just 1000 satoshi ($0.10), and I love how someone made this just to use the Lightning Network! I found this site on Lightning Network Stores directory.
It's just 1000 satoshi ($0.10), and I love how someone made this just to use the Lightning Network! I found this site on Lightning Network Stores directory.
hope someone can integrate Libra in LN
that's unlikely
Plus how can developers integrate something that will never launch?
Since Libra will be based on the blockchain, I would hope someone can integrate Libra in LN too. Also, the merchant can accept BTC and then do an atomic swap for Libra, Tether, or whatever "stablecoin" that they prefer.
Define "blockchain". Because I would say it's a database validated by $10 million dollar "honest" nodes. Hahaha.
hope someone can integrate Libra in LN
that's unlikely
Or maybe a zero-conf payment network?
Sounds great but that's a false statement. I would rather stick to organized and serialized.
Since Libra will be based on the blockchain, I would hope someone can integrate Libra in LN too. Also, the merchant can accept BTC and then do an atomic swap for Libra, Tether, or whatever "stablecoin" that they prefer.
I haven't read much about Libra so I can't say if it's possible. Every Bitcoin fork with SegWit support can run the Lightning Network by making a few small changes in its code. It would be better if developers focused on improving the Lightning Network rather than wasting time on supporting another altcoin (assuming it was possible in this case).
There are significant distinctions between the two, though. For instance, the Lightning payment can be immediately used in a subsequent transaction without waiting for a block confirmation to occur.
Technically, merchants could accept 0-conf transactions which would be instant in such case but that would expose them to double-spending. Instead of believing users, they can set up a Lightning Network node and trust themselves.
Merchants transact in fiat,
Most immediately convert BTC to fiat upon receipt making sure they don't lose money on btc instability.
Lightning network is even worse as the time locks insure no quick fiat conversion.
Meaning if a Merchant does use LN, they do it thru a 3rd party service that offers almost instant fiat conversion.
Otherwise , a small $1000 variance lower in BTC verse fiat could have a devastating effects on their fiat profit margins.
Merchants want stability in price , odds are Libra become more popular than LN with merchants.
If LN is to make inroads with merchants theirs needs to be price stability added.
Find a way to do that, and you could increase merchant adoption.
Since Libra will be based on the blockchain, I would hope someone can integrate Libra in LN too. Also, the merchant can accept BTC and then do an atomic swap for Libra, Tether, or whatever "stablecoin" that they prefer.
I would like some of your reactions/replies. Someone from Bitrefill once said that Lightning is like an "organized - serialized mempool". Any opinions?
I don't think this is a very good description, personally. The only notable similarity between a Lightning Network payment and an vanilla Bitcoin transaction seen in a node's mempool is that neither one has yet been confirmed in a block. There are significant distinctions between the two, though. For instance, the Lightning payment can be immediately used in a subsequent transaction without waiting for a block confirmation to occur.
But the coins are not yet settled in the blockchain, but "suspended" in payment channels. In another way, calling it an organized-serialized mempool is correct. Or maybe a zero-conf payment network?
Merchants transact in fiat,
Most immediately convert BTC to fiat upon receipt making sure they don't lose money on btc instability.
Lightning network is even worse as the time locks insure no quick fiat conversion.
Meaning if a Merchant does use LN, they do it thru a 3rd party service that offers almost instant fiat conversion.
That's basically the same as the current situation: most merchants use a payment processor to take care of the Bitcoin transaction, and get paid directly in fiat. I don't even think the merchant has to choose for LN, once his payment processor accepts it, it gets added just like some merchants accept many different altcoins. Most immediately convert BTC to fiat upon receipt making sure they don't lose money on btc instability.
Lightning network is even worse as the time locks insure no quick fiat conversion.
Meaning if a Merchant does use LN, they do it thru a 3rd party service that offers almost instant fiat conversion.
There are significant distinctions between the two, though. For instance, the Lightning payment can be immediately used in a subsequent transaction without waiting for a block confirmation to occur.
Technically, merchants could accept 0-conf transactions which would be instant in such case but that would expose them to double-spending. Instead of believing users, they can set up a Lightning Network node and trust themselves.
I would like some of your reactions/replies. Someone from Bitrefill once said that Lightning is like an "organized - serialized mempool". Any opinions?
I don't think this is a very good description, personally. The only notable similarity between a Lightning Network payment and an vanilla Bitcoin transaction seen in a node's mempool is that neither one has yet been confirmed in a block. There are significant distinctions between the two, though. For instance, the Lightning payment can be immediately used in a subsequent transaction without waiting for a block confirmation to occur.
I would like some of your reactions/replies. Someone from Bitrefill once said that Lightning is like an "organized - serialized mempool". Any opinions?
Watchtowers - they will be responsible for taking care of people attempting to cheat while the other party is offline.
This feature is now available in Lightning Labs' implementation of the Lightning network. Currently, only altruist watchtowers are available. What are they? This kind of watchtowers doesn't take a cut if one party attempts to cheat; all funds are returned to the victim. Reward watchtowers should be available in the next release.
Did That Mean The 1 Satoshi (Rounded Down Satoshi) Is Left Behind On The Multisig Wallet?
Firstly, you wouldn't be able to open such a small channel due to dust limit. Let's assume that numbers are much higher (5000.1 sat and 4999.9 sat). Leaving 1 satoshi would not make any sense (dust limit) so the only reasonable answer is that it would be added to the fee.
What If The Channel Opener [X] Had So Little Balance That Will Not Enough To Pay For Fee? Did [Y] Must Give [X] Some BTC So He Can Pay For The Closing Fee?
By default, the funder [X] is obligated to cover all fees. The fee rate is negotiated before funding a channel and it can be changed anytime if both parties agree. [Y] won't be obligated to cover the closing fee. If the fee is too low then the channel MAY fail. Last commitment transaction will be used in such case.
BTW I See That There's A Minimum Time Limit Before A Party Can Close A Channel(A Party Can't Close A Channel Before XX/XX/XXXX). Did That Achieved By Timelock or by The Lightning Protocol Itself?
I have never heard of such limitation. One should be able to close a channel even before the funding transaction gets confirmed.
Raspberry Pi 4's CPU is much faster than 3B+'s. 1 GB version seems to be priced the same as the third model, at least in my country. If I were you, I would buy 2 GB or 4GB model of Raspberry Pi 4 and HDD rather than 3B+ and SSD. The fourth model has USB 3.0 and gigabit Ethernet unlike previous models. Buy a small SD card only for the OS, either 8 GB or 16 GB one.
Fair enough; difference seems to be of around 20€ using a 1TB HDD and a 2GB pi 4B and 30 if raspberry of 4G. I'll give it some thought while I wait for the retailer to restock (looks like mid-July
) and if I happen to come accross any more doubts; I'll try to get them solved!Thanks for the help!
Edit: Just realized that supply cable was not included; price has gone up a bit to around 80€ on Raspberry 4 4Gb without the HDD, against 40€ of Raspberry 3
-snip
Raspberry Pi 4's CPU is much faster than 3B+'s. 1 GB version seems to be priced the same as the third model, at least in my country. If I were you, I would buy 2 GB or 4GB model of Raspberry Pi 4 and HDD rather than 3B+ and SSD. The fourth model has USB 3.0 and gigabit Ethernet unlike previous models. Buy a small SD card only for the OS, either 8 GB or 16 GB one.
What node are you reffering to? Bitcoin Core? If so, then the answer is yes. Lightning Network node? You don't have to open channels but then such node doesn't do anything. In order to route payments, you have to open quite a lot of channels.
Understood, thanks!
Raspberry Pi 3B+ is enough to handle Bitcoin Core and Lightning Network node (LND recommended). However, I would recommend you to synchronise with the Bitcoin network on your computer and then copy blockchain data to an external hard drive. Don't use 256 GB memory card. Most of such cards are not designed to handle constant reads and writes. If you haven't bought that model of Raspberry Pi yet then consider buying the latest model (4B) with some extra RAM.
I have not bought yet the hardware, but my budget is quite limited.
I had thought about the flash card being a problem; and the only feasible solution I could find to that is to use an external HDD (or even SSD) rather than a flash card, connected on USB.
@Farul I will answer your post tomorrow once I have more time to explain it.
Yes, see the last answer for more details.
What node are you reffering to? Bitcoin Core? If so, then the answer is yes. Lightning Network node? You don't have to open channels but then such node doesn't do anything. In order to route payments, you have to open quite a lot of channels.
Raspberry Pi 3B+ is enough to handle Bitcoin Core and Lightning Network node (LND recommended). However, I would recommend you to synchronise with the Bitcoin network on your computer and then copy blockchain data to an external hard drive. Don't use 256 GB memory card. Most of such cards are not designed to handle constant reads and writes. If you haven't bought that model of Raspberry Pi yet then consider buying the latest model (4B) with some extra RAM.
Would I be able to run a dual node on the raspberry? (BTC+LN)
Yes, see the last answer for more details.
I understand that to run a node you don't need to have an open channel; am I right?
What node are you reffering to? Bitcoin Core? If so, then the answer is yes. Lightning Network node? You don't have to open channels but then such node doesn't do anything. In order to route payments, you have to open quite a lot of channels.
I'm planing on using a Raspberry PI 3 Model B+ plugged straight to the router, and with a 256gb flash card for the OS (Raspbian).
Raspberry Pi 3B+ is enough to handle Bitcoin Core and Lightning Network node (LND recommended). However, I would recommend you to synchronise with the Bitcoin network on your computer and then copy blockchain data to an external hard drive. Don't use 256 GB memory card. Most of such cards are not designed to handle constant reads and writes. If you haven't bought that model of Raspberry Pi yet then consider buying the latest model (4B) with some extra RAM.
I've reading trough the forum and some googling; because I'm considering opening a LN node with a raspberry, but there are some concerns I have and haven't really found any useful info out there (maybe I should have look further). Questions are the following:
I'm sorry to ask if this has been answered before.
Thanks in advance
I'll give some more details, as I believe that will help resolve the doubts.
I'm planing on using a Raspberry PI 3 Model B+ plugged straight to the router, and with a 256gb flash card for the OS (Raspbian). Then I'll be using the Core client, then things start getting a bit fuzzy for me; I'll use Lightning Network Daemon, then some port forwarding on the router and finally create an automatic reboot with a backup (I believe that's the order for everything)
- Would I be able to run a dual node on the raspberry? (BTC+LN)
- I understand that to run a node you don't need to have an open channel; am I right?
I'm sorry to ask if this has been answered before.
Thanks in advance
I'll give some more details, as I believe that will help resolve the doubts.
I'm planing on using a Raspberry PI 3 Model B+ plugged straight to the router, and with a 256gb flash card for the OS (Raspbian). Then I'll be using the Core client, then things start getting a bit fuzzy for me; I'll use Lightning Network Daemon, then some port forwarding on the router and finally create an automatic reboot with a backup (I believe that's the order for everything)
How Is Milisatoshi In A Channel Is Shared When The Channel Closed?
The amount is rounded down when the channel is closed. 1 msat = 1/1000 sat. For example, if you have 900 msat then you will get 0 satoshi on channel closure.Channel is Funded With 100 Satoshi
A Has 50.1 Satoshi
B Has 49.9 Satoshi
Assume That There's No Transaction Fee A Get 50 satoshi while B Get 49 satoshi.
Did That Mean The 1 Satoshi (Rounded Down Satoshi) Is Left Behind On The Multisig Wallet?
Isn't That Will Ended Up Filling Bitcoin Network UTXO, Which Bitcoin Node Should Store? #PotatoNodesMatter
The person who opened the channel covers the closing fee. Note that it's not possible to use up all funds that are locked up in the channel.
What If The Channel Opener [X] Had So Little Balance That Will Not Enough To Pay For Fee? Did [Y] Must Give [X] Some BTC So He Can Pay For The Closing Fee?BTW I See That There's A Minimum Time Limit Before A Party Can Close A Channel(A Party Can't Close A Channel Before XX/XX/XXXX). Did That Achieved By Timelock or by The Lightning Protocol Itself?
Jump to: