Author: alicexbt 2022-10-14 02:44:04
Published on: 2022-10-14T02:44:04+00:00
The use of lightning payments is only at 4% compared to on-chain payments, which accounts for 32%, according to a tweet by Sergej Kotliar in January 2022. Bitrefill and other similar providers can encourage the use of lightning payments, as they already support it, making it easy to solve by displaying the lightning transfer by default and only showing the on-chain payment as a fallback. It would be interesting to know if there are any obstacles that Bitrefill and other services face or if they don't agree that lightning is an improvement over accepting unconfirmed on-chain transactions from untrusted parties.Full-RBF transactions are relayed reasonably well; however, the missing piece is a few percent of hashrate that will accept fullrbf replacement transactions. Changing the default at the moment does not make sense as v24.0 could give some insights about the usage of fullrbf, and we could wait for a few months before changing the default for users who run the latest version of bitcoin core. Wallets should make it clear to users that unconfirmed funds are not theirs yet, especially protocol-unaware users transacting on-chain with untrusted parties, as they can be easily scammed if they don't know they have to wait for confirmation.Transitioning Muun from using zero-conf submarine swaps to using payment channels is ongoing, but they are still several months away from being production-ready. This means they would have to turn off outgoing lightning payments for over 100k monthly active users, which is a good chunk of all users making non-custodial lightning payments today. Although this is unfortunate for those users, the risk exists today. Relay of fullrbf transactions works reasonably well already, unless you get unlucky with your selected peers.
Updated on: 2023-06-16T00:46:17.938966+00:00