Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>Theoretically yes, in practice no.

...?

1.) I have a direct disincentive to include more collateral than would be absolutely required.

2.) Most of the time LN's only need to go one way.

3.) The only thing your original graph shows is that the price of bitcoin has fallen.

4.) I anecedotely know there has been more use in LN among all my crypto friends and in South/ central America where i have seen increased use in Cafe's and hotels.

5.) The total amount of BTC being used as collateral in LN has grown. (Even though this means absolutely nothing and your graph of 'TVL' Also means nothing when compared is USD).

6.) It's annoying to see someone spitting FUD on BTC/ LN with ETH in their name.



1. My point is about how much collateral is required for a given amount of usage.

2. LN transactions going one way makes the collateral situation worse, by preventing collateral from being replenished by counter-flow transactions.

3. It shows how little value is locked in LN channels relative to value of BTC outstanding.

The rest of your points are either not relevant or have already been addressed.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: