I agree that a ~9x increase in transaction throughput is _not_ a scaling solution, and Liquid is not a Lightning replacement or competitor. But it does make sense to take use of the lower fees of Liquid (there can be a 1000x difference).
Today it makes sense to keep long-term holdings on chain, middle-term mid sum amounts on Liquid, and short term spending on Lightning.
I would like to see expansion of direct Liquid-to-Lightning solutions, I think these would actually be beneficial for Lightning! When on chain fees are high, many people simply will not open new channels, and will gravitate towards custodial Lightning solutions. If Liquid-backed channels were an option in wallets, that would be an additional option for fee-sensitive users. Atomic Liquid-to-LN swaps exists and are convenient, but directly Liquid-based LN solutions are not mainstream (if exist at all).
On a final note, it seems that saturation of the Liquid side-chain is far in the future. When that happens, I speculate that the federation may decide to increase the capacity. An increase by a small factor will not solve scaling, but may be beneficial for the middle-ground usage of Liquid. The point is that it is much easier and less dangerous to change the blocksize in Liquid than on the main chain.
optout
npub1kx…3lecx
2023-12-27 09:51:33
in reply to nevent1q…772l
Author Public Key
npub1kxgpwh80gp79j0chc925srk6rghw0akggduwau8fwdflslh9jvqqd3lecxPublished at
2023-12-27 09:51:33Event JSON
{
"id": "5e87f251d7e556497e2652d4ffeca87dacda01ccb141f2003947d3623db89fe5",
"pubkey": "b190175cef407c593f17c155480eda1a2ee7f6c84378eef0e97353f87ee59300",
"created_at": 1703670693,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"client",
"zapthreads"
],
[
"p",
"e1ff3bfdd4e40315959b08b4fcc8245eaa514637e1d4ec2ae166b743341be1af"
],
[
"e",
"687eeea6fe525b581847bbaea362091b3277efbf8bec8233a62916014b75c9fc",
"",
"root"
],
[
"a",
"30023:e1ff3bfdd4e40315959b08b4fcc8245eaa514637e1d4ec2ae166b743341be1af:356026"
]
],
"content": "I agree that a ~9x increase in transaction throughput is _not_ a scaling solution, and Liquid is not a Lightning replacement or competitor. But it does make sense to take use of the lower fees of Liquid (there can be a 1000x difference).\n\nToday it makes sense to keep long-term holdings on chain, middle-term mid sum amounts on Liquid, and short term spending on Lightning.\n\nI would like to see expansion of direct Liquid-to-Lightning solutions, I think these would actually be beneficial for Lightning! When on chain fees are high, many people simply will not open new channels, and will gravitate towards custodial Lightning solutions. If Liquid-backed channels were an option in wallets, that would be an additional option for fee-sensitive users. Atomic Liquid-to-LN swaps exists and are convenient, but directly Liquid-based LN solutions are not mainstream (if exist at all).\n\nOn a final note, it seems that saturation of the Liquid side-chain is far in the future. When that happens, I speculate that the federation may decide to increase the capacity. An increase by a small factor will not solve scaling, but may be beneficial for the middle-ground usage of Liquid. The point is that it is much easier and less dangerous to change the blocksize in Liquid than on the main chain.",
"sig": "7d5acb114773000447a21cd3fab5b71161373b9a4b49227c5eb7654035e3715e3ab9268b174a4c50816a5ba38a2e9c4a4858335aecc63aeba509300b69631636"
}