Does anyone know if and where there is data available on these questions or who could be tagged here that might have some answers?

1. Now that we have SegWit and more tx batching what is the on-chain capacity in comparison to what is needed for the next surge in the market? Will capacity meet demand?
2. Once LN is widespread as payment what is the expected nr of on-chain tx's for opening and closing channels on top of reg on chain tx's?
Bcash fans keep bringing up these arguments against LN.

@DMN737 IMO:
1. Bitcoin protocol base layer is more than able to handle next wave of adoption, the mining fees will simply rise again to meet rising demand.
2. Haven't heard any good estimates on this exactly, but number of on-chain opening txs will be greater than the number of new users. LN devs are working hard to incorporate submarine swaps to make it unnecessary to ever close undisputed channels:

@landonmutch I understand that the fees will rise but that doesn't increase the capacity. It just depresses usage. Lightning is supposed to relieve the chain of small tx's but if the fee to open a channel is too high it kinda defeats the purpose. Who would open a channel and fund it with $100 if the fee is $50?
So I'm just wondering what the expectations are and if someone has already thought about this and maybe published something.

@DMN737 The real argument to be had is the ability of a purely method versus like layered protocols. For that means -- best piece I can't stop linking to is this -- So it isn't about how big your blocks are - they're using short-sighted "solutions" to a long-term growth problem.

@TallTim Again, I understand the solution that LN is bringing but block size does matter still for the required on chain tx's, even if it's just opening and closing LN channels right? If the number of channel opening and closing tx's exceeds the capacity and on chain fees become too high compared to the amount sent on the channel it won't work.

@DMN737 Think of it this way, scalable protocols are encapsulated by the layers above them as you move upward in the stack. Condensing multiple tx's into one transaction removes clutter just like tx aggregation via has. Also, you control when you decide to reconcile/close your channel which encourages batching behavior. I think 's future is bright. I wouldn't worry about onchain fees, honestly.

@TallTim I understand all that but I'd like to see numbers. Don't trust, verify right?

@DMN737 I'll be watching the main-net and stats closely as it ramps up. We'll know more when aggregate tx activity increases on our second-layer. One site I like --

@TallTim @DMN737 keep in mind: there is no requirement for a user to connect to the LN in order to use the technology. Users can open channels privately and separate from the LN, and their transactions/data will not be present on sites like the one you linked to. But nonetheless the site is interesting! And will provide at least a decent look at usage and adoption.

1. It’s fairly impossible to define what the volume of the next surge may be. Capacity had increased, but demand is unpredictable. Any answer to this seems like a guess at best.
2. I don’t think there’s a good answer to this either, it’ll obviously depend on how utilized LN is, compared to on-chain txs. I think at best you could look at the current trend, but the tech is new so infrastructure is still not ready for widespread adoption, and thus the trends may not yet be meaningful.

@DMN737 great question. bcashers should focus their gaze inward, obviously, but it's on us to try to guess at bitcoin's future capacity. my (cop-out ish) answer is that bitcoin was never a p2p payments network, but is far better suited to be a final settlement and clearance network. for that use-case, it has sufficient capacity today.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Bitcoin Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!