Archives Today
Archives TodayWhen the Lighting Network becomes widely used it will still cost users the on-chain transaction fee to open and close payment channels. Given this fact, and considering that users need to be able to broadcast a breach remedy transaction to keep their counterparty honest, if the miner fee to get a breach remedy transaction promptly confirmed costs more than the attempted theft is worth, then aren’t any payment channel balances that are worth less than the on-chain transaction fee susceptible to theft?
For example, if my payment channel balance is $10, and someone tries to steal my funds, I would have to broadcast a breach remedy transaction, and if that will cost me $11, then I may as well just let them steal my funds.
Eventually fees will need to overtake the block reward in order for miners to remain profitable, so unless the maximum block size increases substantially, fees will become much more expensive than they are now. Therefore, shouldn’t the maximum block size increase by enough to keep transaction fees relatively low so that users can broadcast breach remedy transactions at reasonable fees?
I wouldn’t mind paying $10 to open or close a payment channel if that channel could remain open for a year, but if I’m forced to close it early to prevent theft then it suddenly becomes far less appealing.
Is there something I’m not quite understanding fully here? Can someone please do the math and/or clarify this for me?
submitted by /u/ShayneBTC [link][comments]Read more/u/ShayneBTC
