5 ms·

And the cost of an off-chain transaction? Actually, you're right, that's not worth mentioning because that doesn't fit with your argument.

by reedf1 6y ago

Nursie 6y ago
Well that would be double, as you have to set up and tear down the lightning channel with a transaction for each operation...
- reedf1 6y ago
  ...and the cost of those operations?
- chill1 6y ago
  Your comment is so obviously disingenuous. It makes absolutely no sense to open a Lightning Network channel to send one transaction and then immediately close it.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    It was a joke. OTOH lightning is IMHO a joke as well, for many reasons. Funds need to be tied up, nodes generally need to be online, routing is a (mathematically) hard issue, and the channel open and close transactions (or 'add funds') would certainly become an issue on the main chain if lightning became popular.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    Why? If I want to send money to Bob in Venezuela I need a connection to him. And I'm not interested in sending further transactions to him. And he is in Venezuela and cannot rely on institutions (this is the real scenario that advocates keep bringing up). How am I going to pull this off without an on-chain transaction?
    - j3th9n 6y ago
      You both use your lightning app connected to a LN payment processor which already has the necessary channels open with other nodes and/or payment processors.
      - UncleMeat 6y ago
        Can't do it in Venezuela. The whole point of that scenario when raised as a reason why btc is awesome is that you don't need an attached institution and your transactions cannot be censored.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        j3th9n 6y ago
        An LN payment processor is not institution, it's just a LN node which has channels open to many other nodes and to which you as a user can connect to, so you don't need to open separate channels with everyone you are doing transactions with. And if your LN node becomes unreachable due to censoring: they are often available over Tor too.
        Nursie 6y ago
        Such a node becomes a payment processor, and must have a lot of BTC tied up in its channels in order to facilitate these payments. It's basically a bank at that point. Or a worse Visa.
        j3th9n 6y ago
        It doesn’t need a lot of BTC tied up in channels. It’s enough to have one channel open with another well connected node. Transactions can jump over several nodes to reach their destinations. And everybody can become a bank/payment processor for their friends and family with an LN node, no need for big centralized institutions.
- j3th9n 6y ago
  You clearly don't understand how the Lightning Network works.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
africanboy 6y ago
what are you referring to? off chain operations don't need to spend a lot of energy to validate transactions. AFAIK globally the banking system estimated energy consumption amounts to ~100 terrawatt of power annually that amount includes ATMs, servers and branch offices EDIT: I forgot how touchy people on BC threads could be. The data on energy consumption of banking system was cited from a post of a BC advocate Statista has published data for transaction costs of 2020 https://www.statista.com/statistics/881541/bitcoin-energy-consumption-transaction-comparison-visa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/881541/bitcoin-energy-co... What's interesting to me, on a human level, is the way people in the BC World keep moving the goalpost, one day they are greener because the total absolute power consumption is lower (regardless of users - I remember when in 2019 BC consumed more energy than Switzerland), then when it's not better in absolute anymore, BC is greener because is powered by renewables, like renewables were only available to BC miners, now that BC power consumption is going up (and fast) and banking is going down (slowly) it's ok, because it's the price to pay for freedom and everybody should be happy, even though they don't care about bitcoins etc. etc. Funny, indeed.

And the cost of an off-chain transaction? Actually, you're right, that's not worth mentioning because that doesn't fit with your argument.

by reedf1 6y ago

And the cost of an off-chain transaction? Actually, you're right, that's not worth mentioning because that doesn't fit with your argument.

Nursie 6y ago

Well that would be double, as you have to set up and tear down the lightning channel with a transaction for each operation...

reedf1 6y ago
...and the cost of those operations?
chill1 6y ago
Your comment is so obviously disingenuous. It makes absolutely no sense to open a Lightning Network channel to send one transaction and then immediately close it.
- Nursie 6y ago
  It was a joke. OTOH lightning is IMHO a joke as well, for many reasons. Funds need to be tied up, nodes generally need to be online, routing is a (mathematically) hard issue, and the channel open and close transactions (or 'add funds') would certainly become an issue on the main chain if lightning became popular.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  Why? If I want to send money to Bob in Venezuela I need a connection to him. And I'm not interested in sending further transactions to him. And he is in Venezuela and cannot rely on institutions (this is the real scenario that advocates keep bringing up). How am I going to pull this off without an on-chain transaction?
  - j3th9n 6y ago
    You both use your lightning app connected to a LN payment processor which already has the necessary channels open with other nodes and/or payment processors.
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      Can't do it in Venezuela. The whole point of that scenario when raised as a reason why btc is awesome is that you don't need an attached institution and your transactions cannot be censored.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - j3th9n 6y ago
        An LN payment processor is not institution, it's just a LN node which has channels open to many other nodes and to which you as a user can connect to, so you don't need to open separate channels with everyone you are doing transactions with. And if your LN node becomes unreachable due to censoring: they are often available over Tor too.
        Nursie 6y ago
        Such a node becomes a payment processor, and must have a lot of BTC tied up in its channels in order to facilitate these payments. It's basically a bank at that point. Or a worse Visa.
        j3th9n 6y ago
        It doesn’t need a lot of BTC tied up in channels. It’s enough to have one channel open with another well connected node. Transactions can jump over several nodes to reach their destinations. And everybody can become a bank/payment processor for their friends and family with an LN node, no need for big centralized institutions.
j3th9n 6y ago
You clearly don't understand how the Lightning Network works.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

africanboy 6y ago

what are you referring to? off chain operations don't need to spend a lot of energy to validate transactions. AFAIK globally the banking system estimated energy consumption amounts to ~100 terrawatt of power annually that amount includes ATMs, servers and branch offices EDIT: I forgot how touchy people on BC threads could be. The data on energy consumption of banking system was cited from a post of a BC advocate Statista has published data for transaction costs of 2020 https://www.statista.com/statistics/881541/bitcoin-energy-consumption-transaction-comparison-visa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/881541/bitcoin-energy-co... What's interesting to me, on a human level, is the way people in the BC World keep moving the goalpost, one day they are greener because the total absolute power consumption is lower (regardless of users - I remember when in 2019 BC consumed more energy than Switzerland), then when it's not better in absolute anymore, BC is greener because is powered by renewables, like renewables were only available to BC miners, now that BC power consumption is going up (and fast) and banking is going down (slowly) it's ok, because it's the price to pay for freedom and everybody should be happy, even though they don't care about bitcoins etc. etc. Funny, indeed.