📅 Original date posted:2023-05-08
🗒️ Summary of this message: The lack of Lightning wallets for desktop is a problem for Bitcoin's mass adoption. Ali Sherief may develop a Lightning wallet to address this issue.
📝 Original message:I think one of the bigger problems facing the broader Bitcoin ecosystem is the lack of Lightning wallets for desktop. Mobile wallets are not really an issue, but as far as I know for desktop builds, there's really only Electrum, and Zap Wallet which support Lightning.
The alternative is interacting with the LN node directly, which probably won't be so bad, but it would be better if they carried GUI wallets like BItcoin Core does. Because windows and buttons help with mass adoption of pretty much everything.
I may even consider developing a Lighting wallet given the circumstances.
-Ali
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:13 PM, Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson at protonmail.com> wrote:
>> probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher than the sum of the outputs
>
> And prevent perfectly reasonable transfers of value and attempted Lightning channel closes during fee spikes? If I want to close my Lightning channel during a protracted fee spike where I have to pay an onchain transaction fee greater than the amount I am receiving you want to stop me doing that? You are impinging on a valid use case as well as requiring a consensus rule change.
>
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)
> GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F
>
> Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 13:58, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher than the sum of the outputs
>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2023, 7:55 AM Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin mempool during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20 having such a high volume, real bitcoin transactions are being priced out and that is what is causing the massive congestion that has arguable not been seen since December 2017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion because that was only with 1-5sat/vbyte.
>>>
>>> Such justifiably worthless ("worthless" is not even my word - that's how its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and normal use of the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was intended to be used as.
>>>
>>> If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, should we take an action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, miners, and users. Considering that miners are largely the entities at fault for allowing the system to be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin transactions is being disrupted right now. Although this community has a strong history of not putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely necessary - an example being during the block size wars and Segwit - should similar action be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits into the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which defines the validation rules for Taproot scripts) which has allowed these unintended consequences?
>>>
>>> An alternative would be to enforce this "censorship" at the node level and introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Taproot transactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit the road until minimum next release.
>>>
>>> I know that some people will have their criticisms about this, absolutists/libertarians/maximum-freedom advocates, which is fine, but we need to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We indirectly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible before. So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kind of congestion can never happen again using Taproot.
>>>
>>> -Ali
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> [1]: [https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/](https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/?outputType=amp)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230508/227a4f1c/attachment-0001.html>;
Ali Sherief [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…q2u5f
2023-06-07 23:21:27
in reply to nevent1q…q3jg
Author Public Key
npub1xq96jnxfzrdq4zgre20yqjrjsd29vcw8ymypl4v59cg6q6p66cts8q2u5fPublished at
2023-06-07 23:21:27Event JSON
{
"id": "e6969c101e66b1a8c4c00c48bef27471e907e1d56aa2a8ebcdc743a4da6a5539",
"pubkey": "300ba94cc910da0a8903ca9e40487283545661c726c81fd5942e11a0683ad617",
"created_at": 1686180087,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"99c4bf84b18ff56e33caa2ea8f0dff269c71fbc07db2947c8f69f4bfab247070",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3a8a6e2cad9c9b82d925126852792f31f67828344be76f6eb5767092c303f5c0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7c4981f0d3c5eec97631de273b25b6435f0f33e0fa6cce270ddd3f3b8797d26a"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-05-08\n🗒️ Summary of this message: The lack of Lightning wallets for desktop is a problem for Bitcoin's mass adoption. Ali Sherief may develop a Lightning wallet to address this issue.\n📝 Original message:I think one of the bigger problems facing the broader Bitcoin ecosystem is the lack of Lightning wallets for desktop. Mobile wallets are not really an issue, but as far as I know for desktop builds, there's really only Electrum, and Zap Wallet which support Lightning.\n\nThe alternative is interacting with the LN node directly, which probably won't be so bad, but it would be better if they carried GUI wallets like BItcoin Core does. Because windows and buttons help with mass adoption of pretty much everything.\n\nI may even consider developing a Lighting wallet given the circumstances.\n\n-Ali\n\nOn Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:13 PM, Michael Folkson \u003cmichaelfolkson at protonmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\u003e probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher than the sum of the outputs\n\u003e\n\u003e And prevent perfectly reasonable transfers of value and attempted Lightning channel closes during fee spikes? If I want to close my Lightning channel during a protracted fee spike where I have to pay an onchain transaction fee greater than the amount I am receiving you want to stop me doing that? You are impinging on a valid use case as well as requiring a consensus rule change.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Michael Folkson\n\u003e Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)\n\u003e GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F\n\u003e\n\u003e Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin\n\u003e\n\u003e ------- Original Message -------\n\u003e On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 13:58, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher than the sum of the outputs\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Mon, May 8, 2023, 7:55 AM Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Hi guys,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin mempool during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20 having such a high volume, real bitcoin transactions are being priced out and that is what is causing the massive congestion that has arguable not been seen since December 2017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion because that was only with 1-5sat/vbyte.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Such justifiably worthless (\"worthless\" is not even my word - that's how its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and normal use of the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was intended to be used as.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, should we take an action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, miners, and users. Considering that miners are largely the entities at fault for allowing the system to be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin transactions is being disrupted right now. Although this community has a strong history of not putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely necessary - an example being during the block size wars and Segwit - should similar action be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits into the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which defines the validation rules for Taproot scripts) which has allowed these unintended consequences?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e An alternative would be to enforce this \"censorship\" at the node level and introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Taproot transactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit the road until minimum next release.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I know that some people will have their criticisms about this, absolutists/libertarians/maximum-freedom advocates, which is fine, but we need to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We indirectly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible before. So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kind of congestion can never happen again using Taproot.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e -Ali\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e ---\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e [1]: [https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/](https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/?outputType=amp)\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230508/227a4f1c/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "7154fb54c4427b7c9ed7cb60fcb3e01c5c83a8c9916f1caea01011a6e7b2a9ab65fee9565d514a20326c280c39bb64d10349e770202d0612d5954970cc6c1788"
}