waxwing on Nostr: Not a popular take probably but: I believe Lightning will continue trending in the ...
Not a popular take probably but:
I believe Lightning will continue trending in the direction of higher fees, and I believe that's a good thing.
When it works properly, it's a payment network of spectacularly high quality. As fast or faster than a card payment, perfectly location neutral, no fraud risk and no TTP/censorship risk. Given this excellence, it can bear higher fees.
And its UX is *extremely* good, everything except 'make the payment' can be hidden; the only difficulty is the non-LN (onchain) part.
It needs high fees because when it's basically free, the DOS/jamming risk is huge, and people aren't incented to maintain the infrastructure needed. To be clear, channel jamming doesn't magically disappear with higher fees, but I think they might be a necessary *part* of the defence.
I do think L3s will emerge (or have) that will keep the ultra low or nearly free payments, with slight tradeoffs
I believe Lightning will continue trending in the direction of higher fees, and I believe that's a good thing.
When it works properly, it's a payment network of spectacularly high quality. As fast or faster than a card payment, perfectly location neutral, no fraud risk and no TTP/censorship risk. Given this excellence, it can bear higher fees.
And its UX is *extremely* good, everything except 'make the payment' can be hidden; the only difficulty is the non-LN (onchain) part.
It needs high fees because when it's basically free, the DOS/jamming risk is huge, and people aren't incented to maintain the infrastructure needed. To be clear, channel jamming doesn't magically disappear with higher fees, but I think they might be a necessary *part* of the defence.
I do think L3s will emerge (or have) that will keep the ultra low or nearly free payments, with slight tradeoffs