Transitioning from subsidy to transaction fees to reward miners existed as an idea before nullc. It's in the whitepaper for crying out loud.
Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.
At any rate, the rest of your commentary is inaccurate. Lightning channels can go offline and be completely fine. I've had one offline for months before I brought my node back online and everything was fine.
The inbound liquidity issues are being resolved through dual-funded channels, which means both parties of a channel coordinate to start a channel off with the liquidity balanced between them instead of completely on one side.
LN is in fact still in beta, and you should expect bugs like any other beta software. That should come as no surprise.
Lightning is however in a state where it is more or less safe to use. The twitter bot I run that relays Blockstream Satellite transmissions has on order of 3,000 tweets -- which means there have been 3,000 payments with Lightning for just this one service.
Keep in mind Lightning in general is more suited to small amounts given the very cheap fees and divisibility down to 0.00000000001 of a bitcoin.
So to sum it all up, your post is pretty inaccurate.
Transitioning from subsidy to transaction fees to reward miners existed as an idea before nullc.
That's a completely different idea than having full blocks where users compete for fees. You can also fund miners via lot's of transactions instead of few transactions with large fees.
Lightning channels can go offline and be completely fine.
That's only because the other party didn't do anything. It's like saying leaving your door unlocked and open is safe because you did it once and nobody walked in to steal your stuff. You were lucky.
Lightning is however in a state where it is more or less safe to use.
I did post link to a recent bug where LN is exploited to steal users funds didn't I? This kind of misinformation that "LN is more or less safe" really downplays the existing issues. It is beta software and should be treated as such.
So to sum it all up, your post is pretty inaccurate.
To sum it all up, I was saying transactions in LN are different than Bitcoin transactions and that LN is only in beta, which you also confirm.
Comments
Transitioning from subsidy to transaction fees to reward miners existed as an idea before nullc. It's in the whitepaper for crying out loud.
At any rate, the rest of your commentary is inaccurate. Lightning channels can go offline and be completely fine. I've had one offline for months before I brought my node back online and everything was fine.
The inbound liquidity issues are being resolved through dual-funded channels, which means both parties of a channel coordinate to start a channel off with the liquidity balanced between them instead of completely on one side.
LN is in fact still in beta, and you should expect bugs like any other beta software. That should come as no surprise.
Lightning is however in a state where it is more or less safe to use. The twitter bot I run that relays Blockstream Satellite transmissions has on order of 3,000 tweets -- which means there have been 3,000 payments with Lightning for just this one service.
Keep in mind Lightning in general is more suited to small amounts given the very cheap fees and divisibility down to 0.00000000001 of a bitcoin.
So to sum it all up, your post is pretty inaccurate.
That's a completely different idea than having full blocks where users compete for fees. You can also fund miners via lot's of transactions instead of few transactions with large fees.
That's only because the other party didn't do anything. It's like saying leaving your door unlocked and open is safe because you did it once and nobody walked in to steal your stuff. You were lucky.
I did post link to a recent bug where LN is exploited to steal users funds didn't I? This kind of misinformation that "LN is more or less safe" really downplays the existing issues. It is beta software and should be treated as such.
To sum it all up, I was saying transactions in LN are different than Bitcoin transactions and that LN is only in beta, which you also confirm.