Author: s7r 2015-10-14 22:37:32
Published on: 2015-10-14T22:37:32+00:00
In this discussion, Paul Sztorc argues that Lightning Network (LN) transactions are a substitute for on-chain transactions. Therefore, the demand for on-chain transactions will decrease as a result of LN, leading to lower fees. However, LN and on-chain transactions are also perfect complements since LN transactions cannot take place without periodic on-chain transactions. The demand for all Bitcoin transactions is a function of various factors, including which form of money trading partners will use. By supporting a higher rate of higher-quality Bitcoin transactions, the net result is highly uncertain but will likely increase trading fees.The hashing power of Bitcoin is not related to scalability and decentralization but rather security. Having less decentralized big hashing power is preferable to having less hashing power. If Bitcoin transactions demand grows so high that we require the lightning network, there should be plenty of on-chain transactions for miners to collect fees from. However, the incentives of everyone involved in the lightning network are unknown at this point. It might make sense to enforce a percentage of the fees collected by payment hubs to be spent as miner fees, regardless of whether the transactions from that hub go on the main chain or not.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T00:11:37.752920+00:00