Filou @Filou - 1d
LiGhtNInG iS oNly FoR mIcrOpAyMentS But 5M, 10M or even 20M sat routings are becoming commonplace as the network matures. At least a few times a week I am seeing these types of payments pass through my node.⚡️ The largest this month was 24M sats in a single payment, for which I earned 31,081 sats in routing fees (1295ppm). #lightning network #noderunners #nodestrich https://image.nostr.build/b92282ef02ca056f5f39bd7cd9ceab16c2c3f3ae93b64c7d8f270a5607f3a000.jpg
I only have a couple channels with enough liquidity for that size HTLCs but many that can handle 5-10M easily. It depends on the channel, but it can take a week or two to move things back around and get liquidity where it needs to be again.
It works well, but it’s not exactly passive. First you need big enough routes in place to catch this size HTLCs. And you have to be pretty proactive to get liquidity where it needs to be which is costly and time consuming as well. So catching a nice forward like this is great but it’s only part of the story!
JackTheMimic @JackTheMimic - 1d
The threat is one of a hot wallet. This is the difference between a weekend poker table and a highroller table. While both tables are as safe as you make them, there's always a criminal threat when money is in the open.
Yeah, but there is no cold lightning HSM model.
Yeah, turns out that was a local machine exploit not a flaw in LND. Either way, the point was risk tolerance is different at different income levels. Entrepreneurs boldly go into the darkness knowing most don't find safety. But for those who do, they forward the line of human progress.
I actively rebalance certain channels– The key to lightning is putting liquidity where it is needed in the network. Especially routes to/from exchanges can be high volume but in one direction only. If you don’t manually replenish them they won’t route.
Sure, it’s definitely not 100% without risk. It’s still the ‘bleeding edge’ in many ways but the tech has improved so much only in the last few years since I have run my node. As for security I have never heard of a case of users losing funds that didn’t go back to user error in some way, same as with on chain. It’s as secure as you make it. And for some use cases instant settlement is preferred or even required over onchain which would take ≈10min or more depending on current mempool environment.
Correct, it was attributed to a user’s machine being compromised. A similar security weakness as any hot wallet, but not specific to LN in this case.
Filou @Filou - 20h
Yeah, I am seeing more and more frequent payments on LN that would have been cheaper to make on-chain– As a general rule, smaller payments are cheaper on LN whereas larger ones are cheaper on-chain since fees on LN are based on ppm (dependent on size) and fees on-chain are only dependent on # of UTXOs involved. So currently with low mempool fees, on-chain can be just as cost-effective if not more than LN. However it seems that there are plenty of use cases where (near) instant final settlement is important, even if it's not the cheapest option. Same would be true comparing to a traditional Wire Transfer, I'd argue LN is still a vast improvement even if fees are relatively similar.
Filou @Filou - 16h
This is Telegram notifications from BOS https://github.com/alexbosworth/balanceofsatoshis
The Fishcake🐶🐾 @The Fishcake🐶🐾 - 13h
OKX is definitely a hog, it’s probably a one way routing with them 😂
Filou @Filou - 13h
Yep, mostly one way! But I am (usually) able to rebalance it again within a few days. 🤞
This is the way! 🔥
The most ‘profitable’ node I know of is only about 3BTC total liquidity with 1BTC outbound. They route 1000s of payments a day and rebalance very heavily to capitalize on small inefficiencies.
