So far I’ve made 42 transactions on Lightning Network, and it has cost me 600 sat (channel open) and about 120 sat in routing fees. total of 720 sat, or 4.9 cents. Virtually no other alt-coin can compete with these costs.

28 comments

  1. I feel like the LN, from my understanding of it, would be a horrible user experience for individuals making small purchases. Business to business types of accounts I think are more feasible but I am going to focus on the day to day consumer purchase scenario.

    Let me elaborate on why I think LN is a bad solution for consumers.
    Imagine being required to buy a refundable gift card that can only be used at one store (or chain) the first time you make a purchase from them. Now, all of a sudden, you have to manage all these gift cards and remember how much is in them etc. While those accounts (channels) would be tracked in an app, its still an additional step that is totally useless to me as a consumer- my life is not improved whatsoever as a result of having to think about that extra work!

    It would be easier to just have a transaction go through immediately, removed directly from your personal account (bank account or electronic wallet) and you never have to worry about managing what channels are open and how much money is in them.

    I could be wrong or misunderstand the requirements of opening and financing channels ahead of time- if so please let me know.

  2. DannyBOI_LE

    |Author

    This runs contrary to what they are claiming over in the r/ btc forum , but for some reason the lightning scaling solution seems like it’s going to make more sense in the long term.

  3. rbtkhn

    |Author

    I made one successful payment with this wallet, but the second payment failed, third failed, fourth failed. But even though those transactions, the funds were still stuck in channel, never to be unstuck. This wallet has potential, but it’s miles away from being usable.

  4. rathax_

    |Author

    wait until bitcoin and LN congested… Bitcoin can only manage a really small amount of tx/sec and is very vulnerable to spam.

    LN still has routing issues that will hurt when it grows bigger.

  5. stiggie

    |Author

    I love how you correctly put ” **Virtually no other alt-coin can compete with these costs.** ” in your post, because that’s indeed the truth. There are other coins that can compete with these costs and there are those that are free.

  6. free_my_mind

    |Author

    I’m sorry but your title is BS. I agree LN is great but please stay objective.

    You used a channel which means you did 42 transactions with only one other address. Doing 42 transactions to 42 different addresses would cost much more.

    > Virtually no other alt-coin can compete with these costs.

    As other people mentioned in the comments, some definitely can. Nano is free, so it definitely and virtually **can compete**. Maybe Nano has cons but costs aren’t.

  7. CryptoVandal

    |Author

    If BTC is as successful as we all hope it will be, how long do you think the 600 sats to open the channel will last? (As in, how long will such low fees be available to open new channels as the up take increases?) I think the only model that will work is opening a channel once and using it (and re-funding it over and over). I have not used LN yet. Is this a feasible work flow?

  8. neededafilter

    |Author

    Forgive the most likely tired/stupid question… But when using the LN does everyone need to 1st commit an amount of BTC and lock it in a channel, losing their ability to use it otherwise? Or can the coins stay in your own private wallet with no restrictions on how you send/use them?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.