Is there a solution to paying high fees when opening and closing lightning channels once we hit a fee only market?What are Channel Factories and how do they work?Transaction overriding in lightning networkDo Lightning Channels have to be resolved before a certain time?Is lightning network limited by the 'size' of channels?The cost of restarting a lightning channelLightning network explaination (bidirectional channel funded by one party)What is the size of different types of channel funding/closing transactions for the Lightning Network?Lightning Route Discovery - How to know capacity in each direction?Lightning network avoiding bad channelsLightning: How would I make a monthly payment to a utility company, etcWhy do we need a “routing” process in Lightning Network?
My coworkers think I had a long honeymoon. Actually I was diagnosed with cancer. How do I talk about it?
Did Darth Vader wear the same suit for 20+ years?
How can Iron Man's suit withstand this?
What is in `tex.print` or `tex.sprint`?
Adding two lambda-functions in C++
Word for a small burst of laughter that can't be held back
Can't login after removing Flatpak
How can this map be coloured using four colours?
How to make thick Asian sauces?
PhD student with mental health issues and bad performance
What risks are there when you clear your cookies instead of logging off?
Why don't B747s start takeoffs with full throttle?
Why is quantum entanglement surprising?
What can plausibly explain many of my very long and low-tech bridges?
Implement Homestuck's Catenative Doomsday Dice Cascader
Their answer is discrete, mine is continuous. They baited me into the wrong answer. I have a P Exam question
You've spoiled/damaged the card
Why is c4 bad when playing the London against a King's Indian?
How were concentration and extermination camp guards recruited?
Should I "tell" my exposition or give it through dialogue?
Does the "6 seconds per round" rule apply to speaking/roleplaying during combat situations?
Will TSA allow me to carry a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP)/sleep apnea device?
Can you `= delete` a templated function on a second declaration?
Is it a problem that pull requests are approved without any comments
Is there a solution to paying high fees when opening and closing lightning channels once we hit a fee only market?
What are Channel Factories and how do they work?Transaction overriding in lightning networkDo Lightning Channels have to be resolved before a certain time?Is lightning network limited by the 'size' of channels?The cost of restarting a lightning channelLightning network explaination (bidirectional channel funded by one party)What is the size of different types of channel funding/closing transactions for the Lightning Network?Lightning Route Discovery - How to know capacity in each direction?Lightning network avoiding bad channelsLightning: How would I make a monthly payment to a utility company, etcWhy do we need a “routing” process in Lightning Network?
Paying several hundred dollars to open and close a lightning channel seems uneconomical. This is a common argument against lightning by big blockers, I’m yet to read a valid argument against this.
transaction-fees lightning-network fee-market
asked May 19 at 22:23
Electric_Sheep01Electric_Sheep01
353
add a comment |
Paying several hundred dollars to open and close a lightning channel seems uneconomical. This is a common argument against lightning by big blockers, I’m yet to read a valid argument against this.
transaction-fees lightning-network fee-market
asked May 19 at 22:23
Electric_Sheep01Electric_Sheep01
353
Uneconomical was probably the wrong word yes, but if the fees get higher (which they will once the block subsidy is practically gone) the use of LN will decrease because no one can afford to open a channel. The main chain will be okay due to like you said, high fees = high demand. I’ll have a look into channel factories and get back to this thread.
– Electric_Sheep01
May 20 at 23:13
re: "the use of LN will decrease because no one can afford to open a channel" - This is absolutely not true; on-chain fees will only increase under increased usage. If fees were too high for everyone, then usage would slow/stop, and thus fees would be lowered. In fact, if fees are high, we should expect users to be incentivized to use their transactions to open LN channels, because this will allow them to pay lower fees per payment sent. It is simply not logical to purpose that "high fees will mean no LN channel opening/closing, but regular transactions will still be economical".
– chytrik
May 20 at 23:52
Understand that no matter the fee level, some number of users/use-cases will be priced out. They key point is to find ways to allow more users to engage with the network, without sacrificing the network properties that make Bitcoin interesting in the first place.
– chytrik
May 20 at 23:52
@chytrik I never said regular transactions will not economical, I see L1 primarily being used as the SoV layer of which high fees isn’t an issue. But if I’m interacting with say a small business and want to open a LN channel with them I’m not going to pay 10’s of dollars to open a channel.
– Electric_Sheep01
May 23 at 2:08
That line of reasoning makes more sense to me, though I think it is worth noting that a lot of people and businesses do spend $10's of dollars monthly in order to have a bank account that allows them access to easily transact in the wider economy.
– chytrik
May 23 at 2:19
add a comment |
Paying several hundred dollars to open and close a lightning channel seems uneconomical. This is a common argument against lightning by big blockers, I’m yet to read a valid argument against this.
transaction-fees lightning-network fee-market
asked May 19 at 22:23
Electric_Sheep01Electric_Sheep01
353
Paying several hundred dollars to open and close a lightning channel seems uneconomical. This is a common argument against lightning by big blockers, I’m yet to read a valid argument against this.
transaction-fees lightning-network fee-market
transaction-fees lightning-network fee-market
asked May 19 at 22:23
Electric_Sheep01Electric_Sheep01
353
asked May 19 at 22:23
Electric_Sheep01Electric_Sheep01
353
asked May 19 at 22:23
Electric_Sheep01Electric_Sheep01
353
asked May 19 at 22:23
Electric_Sheep01Electric_Sheep01
353
asked May 19 at 22:23
Electric_Sheep01Electric_Sheep01
353
353
Uneconomical was probably the wrong word yes, but if the fees get higher (which they will once the block subsidy is practically gone) the use of LN will decrease because no one can afford to open a channel. The main chain will be okay due to like you said, high fees = high demand. I’ll have a look into channel factories and get back to this thread.
– Electric_Sheep01
May 20 at 23:13
re: "the use of LN will decrease because no one can afford to open a channel" - This is absolutely not true; on-chain fees will only increase under increased usage. If fees were too high for everyone, then usage would slow/stop, and thus fees would be lowered. In fact, if fees are high, we should expect users to be incentivized to use their transactions to open LN channels, because this will allow them to pay lower fees per payment sent. It is simply not logical to purpose that "high fees will mean no LN channel opening/closing, but regular transactions will still be economical".
– chytrik
May 20 at 23:52
Understand that no matter the fee level, some number of users/use-cases will be priced out. They key point is to find ways to allow more users to engage with the network, without sacrificing the network properties that make Bitcoin interesting in the first place.
– chytrik
May 20 at 23:52
@chytrik I never said regular transactions will not economical, I see L1 primarily being used as the SoV layer of which high fees isn’t an issue. But if I’m interacting with say a small business and want to open a LN channel with them I’m not going to pay 10’s of dollars to open a channel.
– Electric_Sheep01
May 23 at 2:08
That line of reasoning makes more sense to me, though I think it is worth noting that a lot of people and businesses do spend $10's of dollars monthly in order to have a bank account that allows them access to easily transact in the wider economy.
– chytrik
May 23 at 2:19
add a comment |
Uneconomical was probably the wrong word yes, but if the fees get higher (which they will once the block subsidy is practically gone) the use of LN will decrease because no one can afford to open a channel. The main chain will be okay due to like you said, high fees = high demand. I’ll have a look into channel factories and get back to this thread.
– Electric_Sheep01
May 20 at 23:13
re: "the use of LN will decrease because no one can afford to open a channel" - This is absolutely not true; on-chain fees will only increase under increased usage. If fees were too high for everyone, then usage would slow/stop, and thus fees would be lowered. In fact, if fees are high, we should expect users to be incentivized to use their transactions to open LN channels, because this will allow them to pay lower fees per payment sent. It is simply not logical to purpose that "high fees will mean no LN channel opening/closing, but regular transactions will still be economical".
– chytrik
May 20 at 23:52
Understand that no matter the fee level, some number of users/use-cases will be priced out. They key point is to find ways to allow more users to engage with the network, without sacrificing the network properties that make Bitcoin interesting in the first place.
– chytrik
May 20 at 23:52
@chytrik I never said regular transactions will not economical, I see L1 primarily being used as the SoV layer of which high fees isn’t an issue. But if I’m interacting with say a small business and want to open a LN channel with them I’m not going to pay 10’s of dollars to open a channel.
– Electric_Sheep01
May 23 at 2:08
That line of reasoning makes more sense to me, though I think it is worth noting that a lot of people and businesses do spend $10's of dollars monthly in order to have a bank account that allows them access to easily transact in the wider economy.
– chytrik
May 23 at 2:19
Uneconomical was probably the wrong word yes, but if the fees get higher (which they will once the block subsidy is practically gone) the use of LN will decrease because no one can afford to open a channel. The main chain will be okay due to like you said, high fees = high demand. I’ll have a look into channel factories and get back to this thread.
– Electric_Sheep01
May 20 at 23:13
Uneconomical was probably the wrong word yes, but if the fees get higher (which they will once the block subsidy is practically gone) the use of LN will decrease because no one can afford to open a channel. The main chain will be okay due to like you said, high fees = high demand. I’ll have a look into channel factories and get back to this thread.
– Electric_Sheep01
May 20 at 23:13
re: "the use of LN will decrease because no one can afford to open a channel" - This is absolutely not true; on-chain fees will only increase under increased usage. If fees were too high for everyone, then usage would slow/stop, and thus fees would be lowered. In fact, if fees are high, we should expect users to be incentivized to use their transactions to open LN channels, because this will allow them to pay lower fees per payment sent. It is simply not logical to purpose that "high fees will mean no LN channel opening/closing, but regular transactions will still be economical".
– chytrik
May 20 at 23:52
re: "the use of LN will decrease because no one can afford to open a channel" - This is absolutely not true; on-chain fees will only increase under increased usage. If fees were too high for everyone, then usage would slow/stop, and thus fees would be lowered. In fact, if fees are high, we should expect users to be incentivized to use their transactions to open LN channels, because this will allow them to pay lower fees per payment sent. It is simply not logical to purpose that "high fees will mean no LN channel opening/closing, but regular transactions will still be economical".
– chytrik
May 20 at 23:52
Understand that no matter the fee level, some number of users/use-cases will be priced out. They key point is to find ways to allow more users to engage with the network, without sacrificing the network properties that make Bitcoin interesting in the first place.
– chytrik
May 20 at 23:52
Understand that no matter the fee level, some number of users/use-cases will be priced out. They key point is to find ways to allow more users to engage with the network, without sacrificing the network properties that make Bitcoin interesting in the first place.
– chytrik
May 20 at 23:52
@chytrik I never said regular transactions will not economical, I see L1 primarily being used as the SoV layer of which high fees isn’t an issue. But if I’m interacting with say a small business and want to open a LN channel with them I’m not going to pay 10’s of dollars to open a channel.
– Electric_Sheep01
May 23 at 2:08
@chytrik I never said regular transactions will not economical, I see L1 primarily being used as the SoV layer of which high fees isn’t an issue. But if I’m interacting with say a small business and want to open a LN channel with them I’m not going to pay 10’s of dollars to open a channel.
– Electric_Sheep01
May 23 at 2:08
That line of reasoning makes more sense to me, though I think it is worth noting that a lot of people and businesses do spend $10's of dollars monthly in order to have a bank account that allows them access to easily transact in the wider economy.
– chytrik
May 23 at 2:19
That line of reasoning makes more sense to me, though I think it is worth noting that a lot of people and businesses do spend $10's of dollars monthly in order to have a bank account that allows them access to easily transact in the wider economy.
– chytrik
May 23 at 2:19
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
'Under the hood' of a lightning network channel open/close, a user will be sending a bitcoin transaction. In order to send a bitcoin transaction, a fee is paid to miners.
One advantage of having a lightning channel is that you can amortize the cost of the miners fee across a potentially enormous number of payments. All else equal, having the ability to transact on the lightning network thus lowers a users expected fees/payment, small blocks or not.
Channel factories are a technology that could allow for immense cost saving for lightning users. So this is potentially a 'solution', in the context of your question.
Paying several hundred dollars to open and close a lightning channel seems uneconomical. This is a common argument against lightning by big blockers
'Uneconimcal' doesn't seem like the right word to use here. If in the future a bitcoin transaction costs hundreds of dollars in fees, that would mean that the ability to send a bitcoin transaction is in high demand. By many measures, being in high demand is a mark of success, though 'big-blockers' will argue that by increasing the block size the network can increase the 'supply', thus lowering transaction fees.
To illustrate this point, consider the absurdity of this sentence:
"That restaurant has become very popular! Nobody goes there anymore"
So you may ask "Why don't we just increase the size of the restaurant then?"
Well, the issue is that by increasing the size of the restaurant, the restaurant will lose the properties that made it popular in the first place!
So lets return to Bitcoin, to explain why increasing the block size ('making the restaurant larger') is a naïve solution that damages the network's desirable properties, while only providing a rather meagre linear scaling relief:
Implementing larger blocks means that running a full node on the network will be more resource intensive (bandwidth, computational cycles, storage, etc), and so naturally we should expect less nodes will exist due to the increased costs. This is damaging to the core properties of bitcoin (eg censorship resistance), which can only exist when the network is sufficiently decentralized. 'How decentralized is good enough?' is a question that is difficult (if not impossible) to answer, but this much is certain: increasing costs is a centralizing force, and the most conservative approach is to be 'better safe than sorry'. A blockchain network is a very expensive and inefficient way to implement a database, but the core properties mentioned above make these expenses 'worth it', at least according to the market.
In any case, there has never been a time where the average Bitcoin transaction fee is 'hundreds of dollars'... in fact transaction fees have been quite low for the majority of the history of the network. This isn't to say that fees can't or won't increase in the future, but making changes that sacrifice the most important properties of Bitcoin seems like an extremely misguided approach to scaling the network.
answered May 20 at 0:22
chytrikchytrik
8,3042629
Chanel factories and eltoo where my first thought as well. What do you think about side chains? For example lightning could be build on top of Liquid and the cross chain Atomic swap should not be a problem. In particular the American call option Problem should not exist as the underlying asset is the same by the end of the day. In that sense we would have a fragmented base layer in which tx costs should not rise to heavily.
– Rene Pickhardt
May 20 at 0:45
@RenePickhardt hmm interesting! I hadn't considered the possibility of sidechain/mainchain LN interoperability as a means of lowering fees. While the trust model of holding liquid coins is different, I think it could quite reasonably be argued that the potential cost savings would be worth the tradeoff for some users. I think you could post that idea as an answer as well, it seems reasonable to me!
– chytrik
May 20 at 1:15
@RenePickhardt I think using federated coins like L-BTC, in order to enable faster payments would kinda inhibit the decentralized scalability that we can achieve with LN. Even in LN, you do not need to trust anybody, and if anything bad happens, you can just close the channel getting your assets back.
– Ugam Kamat
May 20 at 6:47
There are other potential sidechain solutions like Paul Sztorc's Drivechains. There are some security tradeoffs versus main chain security, but they are still decentralized and permissionless, and can be implemented on Bitcoin with a soft fork.
– Mark H
May 20 at 11:52
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "308"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f87843%2fis-there-a-solution-to-paying-high-fees-when-opening-and-closing-lightning-chann%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
'Under the hood' of a lightning network channel open/close, a user will be sending a bitcoin transaction. In order to send a bitcoin transaction, a fee is paid to miners.
One advantage of having a lightning channel is that you can amortize the cost of the miners fee across a potentially enormous number of payments. All else equal, having the ability to transact on the lightning network thus lowers a users expected fees/payment, small blocks or not.
Channel factories are a technology that could allow for immense cost saving for lightning users. So this is potentially a 'solution', in the context of your question.
Paying several hundred dollars to open and close a lightning channel seems uneconomical. This is a common argument against lightning by big blockers
'Uneconimcal' doesn't seem like the right word to use here. If in the future a bitcoin transaction costs hundreds of dollars in fees, that would mean that the ability to send a bitcoin transaction is in high demand. By many measures, being in high demand is a mark of success, though 'big-blockers' will argue that by increasing the block size the network can increase the 'supply', thus lowering transaction fees.
To illustrate this point, consider the absurdity of this sentence:
"That restaurant has become very popular! Nobody goes there anymore"
So you may ask "Why don't we just increase the size of the restaurant then?"
Well, the issue is that by increasing the size of the restaurant, the restaurant will lose the properties that made it popular in the first place!
So lets return to Bitcoin, to explain why increasing the block size ('making the restaurant larger') is a naïve solution that damages the network's desirable properties, while only providing a rather meagre linear scaling relief:
Implementing larger blocks means that running a full node on the network will be more resource intensive (bandwidth, computational cycles, storage, etc), and so naturally we should expect less nodes will exist due to the increased costs. This is damaging to the core properties of bitcoin (eg censorship resistance), which can only exist when the network is sufficiently decentralized. 'How decentralized is good enough?' is a question that is difficult (if not impossible) to answer, but this much is certain: increasing costs is a centralizing force, and the most conservative approach is to be 'better safe than sorry'. A blockchain network is a very expensive and inefficient way to implement a database, but the core properties mentioned above make these expenses 'worth it', at least according to the market.
In any case, there has never been a time where the average Bitcoin transaction fee is 'hundreds of dollars'... in fact transaction fees have been quite low for the majority of the history of the network. This isn't to say that fees can't or won't increase in the future, but making changes that sacrifice the most important properties of Bitcoin seems like an extremely misguided approach to scaling the network.
answered May 20 at 0:22
chytrikchytrik
8,3042629
Chanel factories and eltoo where my first thought as well. What do you think about side chains? For example lightning could be build on top of Liquid and the cross chain Atomic swap should not be a problem. In particular the American call option Problem should not exist as the underlying asset is the same by the end of the day. In that sense we would have a fragmented base layer in which tx costs should not rise to heavily.
– Rene Pickhardt
May 20 at 0:45
@RenePickhardt hmm interesting! I hadn't considered the possibility of sidechain/mainchain LN interoperability as a means of lowering fees. While the trust model of holding liquid coins is different, I think it could quite reasonably be argued that the potential cost savings would be worth the tradeoff for some users. I think you could post that idea as an answer as well, it seems reasonable to me!
– chytrik
May 20 at 1:15
@RenePickhardt I think using federated coins like L-BTC, in order to enable faster payments would kinda inhibit the decentralized scalability that we can achieve with LN. Even in LN, you do not need to trust anybody, and if anything bad happens, you can just close the channel getting your assets back.
– Ugam Kamat
May 20 at 6:47
There are other potential sidechain solutions like Paul Sztorc's Drivechains. There are some security tradeoffs versus main chain security, but they are still decentralized and permissionless, and can be implemented on Bitcoin with a soft fork.
– Mark H
May 20 at 11:52
add a comment |
'Under the hood' of a lightning network channel open/close, a user will be sending a bitcoin transaction. In order to send a bitcoin transaction, a fee is paid to miners.
One advantage of having a lightning channel is that you can amortize the cost of the miners fee across a potentially enormous number of payments. All else equal, having the ability to transact on the lightning network thus lowers a users expected fees/payment, small blocks or not.
Channel factories are a technology that could allow for immense cost saving for lightning users. So this is potentially a 'solution', in the context of your question.
Paying several hundred dollars to open and close a lightning channel seems uneconomical. This is a common argument against lightning by big blockers
'Uneconimcal' doesn't seem like the right word to use here. If in the future a bitcoin transaction costs hundreds of dollars in fees, that would mean that the ability to send a bitcoin transaction is in high demand. By many measures, being in high demand is a mark of success, though 'big-blockers' will argue that by increasing the block size the network can increase the 'supply', thus lowering transaction fees.
To illustrate this point, consider the absurdity of this sentence:
"That restaurant has become very popular! Nobody goes there anymore"
So you may ask "Why don't we just increase the size of the restaurant then?"
Well, the issue is that by increasing the size of the restaurant, the restaurant will lose the properties that made it popular in the first place!
So lets return to Bitcoin, to explain why increasing the block size ('making the restaurant larger') is a naïve solution that damages the network's desirable properties, while only providing a rather meagre linear scaling relief:
Implementing larger blocks means that running a full node on the network will be more resource intensive (bandwidth, computational cycles, storage, etc), and so naturally we should expect less nodes will exist due to the increased costs. This is damaging to the core properties of bitcoin (eg censorship resistance), which can only exist when the network is sufficiently decentralized. 'How decentralized is good enough?' is a question that is difficult (if not impossible) to answer, but this much is certain: increasing costs is a centralizing force, and the most conservative approach is to be 'better safe than sorry'. A blockchain network is a very expensive and inefficient way to implement a database, but the core properties mentioned above make these expenses 'worth it', at least according to the market.
In any case, there has never been a time where the average Bitcoin transaction fee is 'hundreds of dollars'... in fact transaction fees have been quite low for the majority of the history of the network. This isn't to say that fees can't or won't increase in the future, but making changes that sacrifice the most important properties of Bitcoin seems like an extremely misguided approach to scaling the network.
answered May 20 at 0:22
chytrikchytrik
8,3042629
Chanel factories and eltoo where my first thought as well. What do you think about side chains? For example lightning could be build on top of Liquid and the cross chain Atomic swap should not be a problem. In particular the American call option Problem should not exist as the underlying asset is the same by the end of the day. In that sense we would have a fragmented base layer in which tx costs should not rise to heavily.
– Rene Pickhardt
May 20 at 0:45
@RenePickhardt hmm interesting! I hadn't considered the possibility of sidechain/mainchain LN interoperability as a means of lowering fees. While the trust model of holding liquid coins is different, I think it could quite reasonably be argued that the potential cost savings would be worth the tradeoff for some users. I think you could post that idea as an answer as well, it seems reasonable to me!
– chytrik
May 20 at 1:15
@RenePickhardt I think using federated coins like L-BTC, in order to enable faster payments would kinda inhibit the decentralized scalability that we can achieve with LN. Even in LN, you do not need to trust anybody, and if anything bad happens, you can just close the channel getting your assets back.
– Ugam Kamat
May 20 at 6:47
There are other potential sidechain solutions like Paul Sztorc's Drivechains. There are some security tradeoffs versus main chain security, but they are still decentralized and permissionless, and can be implemented on Bitcoin with a soft fork.
– Mark H
May 20 at 11:52
add a comment |
'Under the hood' of a lightning network channel open/close, a user will be sending a bitcoin transaction. In order to send a bitcoin transaction, a fee is paid to miners.
One advantage of having a lightning channel is that you can amortize the cost of the miners fee across a potentially enormous number of payments. All else equal, having the ability to transact on the lightning network thus lowers a users expected fees/payment, small blocks or not.
Channel factories are a technology that could allow for immense cost saving for lightning users. So this is potentially a 'solution', in the context of your question.
Paying several hundred dollars to open and close a lightning channel seems uneconomical. This is a common argument against lightning by big blockers
'Uneconimcal' doesn't seem like the right word to use here. If in the future a bitcoin transaction costs hundreds of dollars in fees, that would mean that the ability to send a bitcoin transaction is in high demand. By many measures, being in high demand is a mark of success, though 'big-blockers' will argue that by increasing the block size the network can increase the 'supply', thus lowering transaction fees.
To illustrate this point, consider the absurdity of this sentence:
"That restaurant has become very popular! Nobody goes there anymore"
So you may ask "Why don't we just increase the size of the restaurant then?"
Well, the issue is that by increasing the size of the restaurant, the restaurant will lose the properties that made it popular in the first place!
So lets return to Bitcoin, to explain why increasing the block size ('making the restaurant larger') is a naïve solution that damages the network's desirable properties, while only providing a rather meagre linear scaling relief:
Implementing larger blocks means that running a full node on the network will be more resource intensive (bandwidth, computational cycles, storage, etc), and so naturally we should expect less nodes will exist due to the increased costs. This is damaging to the core properties of bitcoin (eg censorship resistance), which can only exist when the network is sufficiently decentralized. 'How decentralized is good enough?' is a question that is difficult (if not impossible) to answer, but this much is certain: increasing costs is a centralizing force, and the most conservative approach is to be 'better safe than sorry'. A blockchain network is a very expensive and inefficient way to implement a database, but the core properties mentioned above make these expenses 'worth it', at least according to the market.
In any case, there has never been a time where the average Bitcoin transaction fee is 'hundreds of dollars'... in fact transaction fees have been quite low for the majority of the history of the network. This isn't to say that fees can't or won't increase in the future, but making changes that sacrifice the most important properties of Bitcoin seems like an extremely misguided approach to scaling the network.
answered May 20 at 0:22
chytrikchytrik
8,3042629
'Under the hood' of a lightning network channel open/close, a user will be sending a bitcoin transaction. In order to send a bitcoin transaction, a fee is paid to miners.
One advantage of having a lightning channel is that you can amortize the cost of the miners fee across a potentially enormous number of payments. All else equal, having the ability to transact on the lightning network thus lowers a users expected fees/payment, small blocks or not.
Channel factories are a technology that could allow for immense cost saving for lightning users. So this is potentially a 'solution', in the context of your question.
Paying several hundred dollars to open and close a lightning channel seems uneconomical. This is a common argument against lightning by big blockers
'Uneconimcal' doesn't seem like the right word to use here. If in the future a bitcoin transaction costs hundreds of dollars in fees, that would mean that the ability to send a bitcoin transaction is in high demand. By many measures, being in high demand is a mark of success, though 'big-blockers' will argue that by increasing the block size the network can increase the 'supply', thus lowering transaction fees.
To illustrate this point, consider the absurdity of this sentence:
"That restaurant has become very popular! Nobody goes there anymore"
So you may ask "Why don't we just increase the size of the restaurant then?"
Well, the issue is that by increasing the size of the restaurant, the restaurant will lose the properties that made it popular in the first place!
So lets return to Bitcoin, to explain why increasing the block size ('making the restaurant larger') is a naïve solution that damages the network's desirable properties, while only providing a rather meagre linear scaling relief:
Implementing larger blocks means that running a full node on the network will be more resource intensive (bandwidth, computational cycles, storage, etc), and so naturally we should expect less nodes will exist due to the increased costs. This is damaging to the core properties of bitcoin (eg censorship resistance), which can only exist when the network is sufficiently decentralized. 'How decentralized is good enough?' is a question that is difficult (if not impossible) to answer, but this much is certain: increasing costs is a centralizing force, and the most conservative approach is to be 'better safe than sorry'. A blockchain network is a very expensive and inefficient way to implement a database, but the core properties mentioned above make these expenses 'worth it', at least according to the market.
In any case, there has never been a time where the average Bitcoin transaction fee is 'hundreds of dollars'... in fact transaction fees have been quite low for the majority of the history of the network. This isn't to say that fees can't or won't increase in the future, but making changes that sacrifice the most important properties of Bitcoin seems like an extremely misguided approach to scaling the network.
answered May 20 at 0:22
chytrikchytrik
8,3042629
answered May 20 at 0:22
chytrikchytrik
8,3042629
answered May 20 at 0:22
chytrikchytrik
8,3042629
answered May 20 at 0:22
chytrikchytrik
8,3042629
8,3042629
Chanel factories and eltoo where my first thought as well. What do you think about side chains? For example lightning could be build on top of Liquid and the cross chain Atomic swap should not be a problem. In particular the American call option Problem should not exist as the underlying asset is the same by the end of the day. In that sense we would have a fragmented base layer in which tx costs should not rise to heavily.
– Rene Pickhardt
May 20 at 0:45
@RenePickhardt hmm interesting! I hadn't considered the possibility of sidechain/mainchain LN interoperability as a means of lowering fees. While the trust model of holding liquid coins is different, I think it could quite reasonably be argued that the potential cost savings would be worth the tradeoff for some users. I think you could post that idea as an answer as well, it seems reasonable to me!
– chytrik
May 20 at 1:15
@RenePickhardt I think using federated coins like L-BTC, in order to enable faster payments would kinda inhibit the decentralized scalability that we can achieve with LN. Even in LN, you do not need to trust anybody, and if anything bad happens, you can just close the channel getting your assets back.
– Ugam Kamat
May 20 at 6:47
There are other potential sidechain solutions like Paul Sztorc's Drivechains. There are some security tradeoffs versus main chain security, but they are still decentralized and permissionless, and can be implemented on Bitcoin with a soft fork.
– Mark H
May 20 at 11:52
add a comment |
Chanel factories and eltoo where my first thought as well. What do you think about side chains? For example lightning could be build on top of Liquid and the cross chain Atomic swap should not be a problem. In particular the American call option Problem should not exist as the underlying asset is the same by the end of the day. In that sense we would have a fragmented base layer in which tx costs should not rise to heavily.
– Rene Pickhardt
May 20 at 0:45
@RenePickhardt hmm interesting! I hadn't considered the possibility of sidechain/mainchain LN interoperability as a means of lowering fees. While the trust model of holding liquid coins is different, I think it could quite reasonably be argued that the potential cost savings would be worth the tradeoff for some users. I think you could post that idea as an answer as well, it seems reasonable to me!
– chytrik
May 20 at 1:15
@RenePickhardt I think using federated coins like L-BTC, in order to enable faster payments would kinda inhibit the decentralized scalability that we can achieve with LN. Even in LN, you do not need to trust anybody, and if anything bad happens, you can just close the channel getting your assets back.
– Ugam Kamat
May 20 at 6:47
There are other potential sidechain solutions like Paul Sztorc's Drivechains. There are some security tradeoffs versus main chain security, but they are still decentralized and permissionless, and can be implemented on Bitcoin with a soft fork.
– Mark H
May 20 at 11:52
Chanel factories and eltoo where my first thought as well. What do you think about side chains? For example lightning could be build on top of Liquid and the cross chain Atomic swap should not be a problem. In particular the American call option Problem should not exist as the underlying asset is the same by the end of the day. In that sense we would have a fragmented base layer in which tx costs should not rise to heavily.
– Rene Pickhardt
May 20 at 0:45
Chanel factories and eltoo where my first thought as well. What do you think about side chains? For example lightning could be build on top of Liquid and the cross chain Atomic swap should not be a problem. In particular the American call option Problem should not exist as the underlying asset is the same by the end of the day. In that sense we would have a fragmented base layer in which tx costs should not rise to heavily.
– Rene Pickhardt
May 20 at 0:45
@RenePickhardt hmm interesting! I hadn't considered the possibility of sidechain/mainchain LN interoperability as a means of lowering fees. While the trust model of holding liquid coins is different, I think it could quite reasonably be argued that the potential cost savings would be worth the tradeoff for some users. I think you could post that idea as an answer as well, it seems reasonable to me!
– chytrik
May 20 at 1:15
@RenePickhardt hmm interesting! I hadn't considered the possibility of sidechain/mainchain LN interoperability as a means of lowering fees. While the trust model of holding liquid coins is different, I think it could quite reasonably be argued that the potential cost savings would be worth the tradeoff for some users. I think you could post that idea as an answer as well, it seems reasonable to me!
– chytrik
May 20 at 1:15
@RenePickhardt I think using federated coins like L-BTC, in order to enable faster payments would kinda inhibit the decentralized scalability that we can achieve with LN. Even in LN, you do not need to trust anybody, and if anything bad happens, you can just close the channel getting your assets back.
– Ugam Kamat
May 20 at 6:47
@RenePickhardt I think using federated coins like L-BTC, in order to enable faster payments would kinda inhibit the decentralized scalability that we can achieve with LN. Even in LN, you do not need to trust anybody, and if anything bad happens, you can just close the channel getting your assets back.
– Ugam Kamat
May 20 at 6:47
There are other potential sidechain solutions like Paul Sztorc's Drivechains. There are some security tradeoffs versus main chain security, but they are still decentralized and permissionless, and can be implemented on Bitcoin with a soft fork.
– Mark H
May 20 at 11:52
There are other potential sidechain solutions like Paul Sztorc's Drivechains. There are some security tradeoffs versus main chain security, but they are still decentralized and permissionless, and can be implemented on Bitcoin with a soft fork.
– Mark H
May 20 at 11:52
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Bitcoin Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f87843%2fis-there-a-solution-to-paying-high-fees-when-opening-and-closing-lightning-chann%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Uneconomical was probably the wrong word yes, but if the fees get higher (which they will once the block subsidy is practically gone) the use of LN will decrease because no one can afford to open a channel. The main chain will be okay due to like you said, high fees = high demand. I’ll have a look into channel factories and get back to this thread.
– Electric_Sheep01
May 20 at 23:13
re: "the use of LN will decrease because no one can afford to open a channel" - This is absolutely not true; on-chain fees will only increase under increased usage. If fees were too high for everyone, then usage would slow/stop, and thus fees would be lowered. In fact, if fees are high, we should expect users to be incentivized to use their transactions to open LN channels, because this will allow them to pay lower fees per payment sent. It is simply not logical to purpose that "high fees will mean no LN channel opening/closing, but regular transactions will still be economical".
– chytrik
May 20 at 23:52
Understand that no matter the fee level, some number of users/use-cases will be priced out. They key point is to find ways to allow more users to engage with the network, without sacrificing the network properties that make Bitcoin interesting in the first place.
– chytrik
May 20 at 23:52
@chytrik I never said regular transactions will not economical, I see L1 primarily being used as the SoV layer of which high fees isn’t an issue. But if I’m interacting with say a small business and want to open a LN channel with them I’m not going to pay 10’s of dollars to open a channel.
– Electric_Sheep01
May 23 at 2:08
That line of reasoning makes more sense to me, though I think it is worth noting that a lot of people and businesses do spend $10's of dollars monthly in order to have a bank account that allows them access to easily transact in the wider economy.
– chytrik
May 23 at 2:19