people don't just put money in their Lightning Channels for fun, they put it there to make transactions and there are some big channels that have done it to support the network and process more transactions.
however i don't know how you can count how many transactions have taken place in this network, if at all possible to count. but you can check out some of the stats some of the merchants released. for example i remember the bitrefil saying they reached 1BTC payment about 6 or 7 months ago. haven't checked for updates though.

That's correct. However, they still report quite big volumes. My knowledge of LN is still not great, but I expect at some point people will also send BTC via LN in both direction multiple times (pretty similar to rinse and repeat) and still have big volumes. I think that the ones making those channels can make some stats with these numbers. Am I wrong?



Even after 30 days the sum can be calculated. And from my understanding that sum is not related to the "advertised" "capacity" of those channels, so I'd like to know it, since it would give a better view about the current "success" of LN (although it's still beta).

Damn bro, you *still* here fighting the disinfo! You got more patience than me

bitcoin is in beta and its been 10 years.
using the Beta excuse is just saying they can stall things for as long as they like, promise anything and if a flaw is found then and only then do they backtrack their over promises and just say well "its an experiment" "it's beta"

i think too many people that dont actually use LN or have not even done the research on its limitations/flaws, are too excited about the over promised utopia. and are happy to say bitcoin cant scale purely to advertise this altrnative network thy have little clue about

so heads up. heres an actual LN, core and blockstream dev who actually openly is telling people some of the flaws that he says himself will be unlikely resolved
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570

the fuss is that LN is not a bitcoin feature. its its own separate network for multiple coins to use (thus not something to concentrate on giving bitcoin uniqueness)
bitcoin had to b modified to become compatible to the commercial network known as LN. LN was not modified to fit bitcoin.

the fuss is that BITCOIN i will emphasise this BITCOIN NETWORK needs to scale, yet years of delays, excuses and backtracking and 'beta/experiment' blah is now turning into bitcoin cant scale so hand bitcoin to factories(banks) and let them give you unconfirmed/non blockchain audited 12 decimal pegged tokens. as the only road to go down.

the fuss is even if LN works for a niche of daily spenders(yp even in utopia its not fir for everyone). the bitcoin NETWORK still needs to scale to manage such. and also cope with the people that dont want to use LN...

and yet. years later. BITCOIN has not progressed.
infact many are already starting to say using other networks to exit LN is a future.
the same old banking/thunderdome tactics.
gold and silver may enter silver may leave

we even now have the community making out that being a true bitcoin fan (bitcoin maximalist) are bad.

sorry but th fuss will continue if the whole ethos of bitcoin being an open barriers digital cash. gets morphed into a bank vaulted coin to play around with non blockchain unconfirmed funds that are no better than fiat.

I strongly disagree because bitcoincash is not a different team and it is not an honest approach. any "other team" who wanted to create something useful would have created something new as in from scratch not build on top of bitcoin by using its name and try to gain popularity that way.
in my eyes anybody who does that will automatically invalidates their own project no matter what. we already have a lot of altcoins, some of which are unique without trying to stick to bitcoin and its name like a parasite.
and lets not forget about the problems that they have been causing for bitcoin by stealing hashrate.

Pegged? There's no "peg" in the Lightning Network. There is no issuance of "pegged" tokens. All the Bitcoins in Lightning are real Bitcoins stored in a 2-of-2 multi-sig address, with all transactions stored locally, and ready to be broadcasted on-chain.

Don't you believe that Lightning can increase Bitcoin's utility by improving its divisibility?

i don't remember that being a promise at all. the security model of LN always depended on a locktime mechanism in case the other channel participant was unresponsive.


"close channels and broadcast when you like" is the ideal situation. and LN participants have incentive to be good actors---being unresponsive as a merchant loses you customers and being unresponsive as a hub loses you future fees.

depending on locktime with unresponsive counterparties is just a worst case scenario, same as depending on anti-theft transactions with dishonest counterparties.

how much the fees are going to be will depend on the level of adoption. it is more like a competitive market (similar to blockchain and how a transaction you send has a competitive fee). but the competition is no longer on block space since there is none in LN. the competition is with nodes, you can always choose a setting to go through a route that gives you the lowest fee. so if some nodes decide to ask for higher fees, they won't get to process any transactions.