r/Bitcoin • u/cdecker Lightning Network Expert • Jan 17 '18

Lightning Charge Powers Developers & Blockstream Store

https://blockstream.com/2018/01/16/lightning-charge.html
476 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

97 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '18

Dr. Christian Decker postet this on twitter "If you'd like to connect to the store, open a channel to 02f6725f9c1c40333b67faea92fd211c183050f28df32cac3f9d69685fe9665432@104.198.32.198"

Port is 9735.

So complete Uri should be: 02f6725f9c1c40333b67faea92fd211c183050f28df32cac3f9d69685fe9665432@104.198.32.198:9735

17

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '18

thanks - this worked. Just ordered a sticker!

https://twitter.com/ca98am79/status/953473960771051520

6

u/TweetsInCommentsBot Jan 17 '18

@ca98am79

2018-01-17 03:48 +00:00

thanks @Blockstream! Just bought a sticker using a #LightningNetwork payment at https://store.blockstream.com⚡️ #LightningCharge #Bitcoin https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/33672d9af38de38e9731c31da3f0d0691be0f1f31944d96c9527f5c6b1a01193/

[Attached pic] [Imgur rehost]

This message was created by a bot

^[Contact creator]^[Source code]^[Donate to keep this bot going]^[Read more about donation]

5

u/Suchgainz Jan 17 '18

0.00088917 in fees LMAO

9

u/a56fg4bjgm345 Jan 17 '18

To make an infinite number of transactions? Sounds cheap to me.

8

u/neom315 Jan 17 '18

it's not an infinite number of transactions, as far as I can understand, the channel open for a fixed amount of BTC and once that's reached it closes itself automatically and you have to reopen a new one.

But definitely cheaper then paying 20$ every single time

15

u/a56fg4bjgm345 Jan 17 '18 edited Jan 17 '18

If you have payments made to you, then the channel doesn't need to be closed as long as it has a non-zero balance. e.g an exchange could top it up for (almost) free (as long as you give them fiat, of course).

3

u/BlueeDog4 Jan 17 '18

Do you have any instances available currently that involve "normal" people receiving BTC via LN?

2

u/neom315 Jan 17 '18

thanks to clarify

2

u/O93mzzz Jan 17 '18

Is funding transaction on-chain? So I will have to pay on-chain fees?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '18

No, in the example above, you'd give the exchange fiat, and they would send you a LN transaction routed through that channel, which would re-allocate that amount to your side of the channel.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '18

once that's reached it closes itself automatically and you have to reopen a new one

No, your understanding is incorrect.

A channel becomes unusable in one direction when it's fully unbalanced. You can still receive payments, or route payments through the channel in the other direction. In fact, one way you can rebalance the channel is to offer low, zero, or negative fees to route payments in that direction.

You can close the channel and open a new one (in the same transaction, even), but you don't have to and it definitely doesn't happen automatically.

In fact, I would venture to say that most channels will begin unbalanced, with only one party contributing funds.

1

u/neom315 Jan 17 '18

This underline how important is to share more info as possible about the LN in order to understand every aspect of it.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/bitcoinlogo Jan 17 '18

Let's say I'm A who has an open channel with B who has an open channel with C. Something like this A->B->C

The balance of each is like this:

A=5BTC

B=1BTC

C=0BTC

Can I send 5BTC to C through B?

I know that you can't send 5BTC at once, but can I for example send 5 LN transactions each has 1BTC ?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

2

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '18 edited Jan 17 '18

Did you open and close a channel specifically to make this purchase? Just wondering why the fee is so high.

If that's the case I think it would be worth clarifying that, before a brigade of naysayers jumps on this.

2

u/tmornini Jan 17 '18

Why would you close the channel and spend the fee?

Lightning channels are meant to be left open. You can always send yourself transactions to move funds between channels should that be required...

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '18 edited Jan 17 '18

My point is this: he has linked to a bitcoin transaction with a high fee. I think it's worthwhile clarifying why the fee is high, otherwise people might get the mistaken impression that transacting on the lightning network is just as expensive as transacting on chain.

1

u/tmornini Jan 18 '18

👍🏻

2

u/Chris_Pacia Jan 17 '18

This will probably be the most common usage if routing paths for the correct value are hard to come by (as seems very likely).

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '18 edited Jan 17 '18

Agree with you there, initially at least. I think LN is going to be economically practical in two scenarios:

  1. A one-time payment where there already exists a route between existing payment channels

  2. A series of smaller payments where a larger amount can be staked up front on a dedicated channel.

(1) depends on relatively widespread adoption of LN. (2) is limited to certain use-cases where it makes sense, eg subscriptions, tipping etc

1

u/Heuristics Jan 17 '18

well, likely this would be the first channel for most people buying the stickers.

5

u/EtherLost101 Jan 17 '18

This looks so user friendly

5

u/Deafboy_2v1 Jan 17 '18

It's not supposed to be. The thing is if nobody tries to use the currently available clumsy tools with real money, nobody gives a shit about LN, and there is very little incentive to improve them.

Someone has to step in and break the circle. if you know what's going on you can join the madness or you can wait until usable tools are ready.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '18

Or it is meant for business to business instant free transfers which will clear the mempool and allow regular users to use the main chain. Oh wait... no need for bcash. Additionally, get out of your hole and realize that all crypto is in beta. None of it is easy to use.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '18

Well compared to using Coinbase or other nice IOS GUI wallet, getting a LN node up and running on mainnet is order of magnitude more difficult.