The #Bitcoin#LightningNetwork works a lot better than it used to, and most of the time these days payments go through.
But it will ALWAYS have far higher likelihood of failed payments than on-chain cryptos. Maxis who say "I've never had a problem" are likely lying!
🧵time
1/8
Keeping it simple for brevity's sake: on networks without congestion, unless there's some bug or issue in the individual wallet implementation, your transaction will go through almost all the time.
Most common exception in my ~10 years of using crypto is connectivity issues
2/8
With Lightning, your payment can fail if the sender can't connect (just like on-chain), but ADDITIONALLY if:
-the RECIPIENT can't connect
-there's no payment route
-the payment is too large
-someone on the route can't connect or doesn't have enough liquidity
3/8
I'm sure you can imagine that, statistically, the probability of payment failure with Lightning is orders of magnitude higher than on-chain because of all the different things that can go wrong, any one of which causes the payment to fail.
Use it enough and it WILL fail!
4/8
So when a Bitcoin maximalist brushes you off saying they've never had a Lightning payment fail, we have three options:
-They rarely (if ever) use Lightning
-They use custodial (non-Lightning) solutions
-They're lying
I suspect it's a mix of all three.
5/8
I've reported failed payments a few different times.
The reason for this is that I live entirely on crypto, and Lightning payments are a part of that.
I've sent hundreds of Lightning payments to buy a variety of goods and services. Every once in a while, one will fail!
6/8
The Lightning Network works better than ever before, and with most wallets and services, payments don't often fail.
But they still do sometimes, significantly more often than on-chain.
This will always be the case unless the network concentrates into large hubs.
7/8
Watch my latest video on Lightning's inherent challenges:
And if you liked this, please give me a follow. Cheers!
8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm a @FreeStateNH mover and libertarian, but I will NOT be voting for @jeremykauffman on Tuesday, or for any @LPNH candidates. The party has turned me from an easy, automatic "yes" voter on some races to "no" across the board, and I'll explain why below 👇
Neither A nor B is possible when voting for the LPNH this cycle. No candidate has a realistic chance of winning, and I don't like the message I would be sending with a vote of conscience.
2/8
Don't get me wrong: I like @jeremykauffman personally and respect (even admire) the work he's done with @LBRYcom and helping the @FreeStateNH gain exposure.
If he actually got elected I have no doubt his voting record would be stellar, and would improve liberty.
3/8
You can solve @Twitter's bot problem with one simple trick! No, this isn't clickbait, it's true. Just one new feature would make this super simple to solve.
First, you need crypto payments (fiat/dollars are too clunky and need to much verification). Twitter's "add tipping address" feature is a good start.
You just need a way to associate payments with tweets so people can see which post generated the tip. Why? Keep reading!
2/6
THE EASY TRICK:
Let users set a fee to comment on their tweets. That's it. Super simple!
Even at a sub-cent fee, those running bots will go broke spending all that money on extremely low-percentage scam links. They'll just stop doing it.
3/6