b0xxer/web
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update docs/liquid/liquid-part3.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
b0xxer 2024-02-04 10:56:06 -06:00
parent ae6aff6267
commit e0c8a3be14
1 changed files with 13 additions and 16 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

29
docs/liquid/liquid-part3.md
View File

@ -137,27 +137,24 @@ Ignoring inbound liquidity issues, lets just look at current pain points in sett
* High fees then force larger minimums for open / close
* Higher channel sizes then increases risk
Currently opening an outbound LN channel would require approx 7500 sats to complete[^6], this implies a cost basis of 7.5% to open a 100,000 sat channel. Therefore as mentioned above, we are incentivized to open larger channels to minimize the fee cost. As fees go higher, this pushes minimum channel sizes ever higher. Ultimately this leads us taking on more risk than we would like to.
However if we use Liquid as the *staging area* the cost plummets. Currently opening a 15,000 sat LN channel from Liquid would currently cost approx 163 sats in fee -- thats only a 1% cost basis (over 7x cheaper than doing it on mainchain *and a much smaller channel*). Cost basis goes even lower if we go for larger channels, so a 100,000 sat LN open from Liquid would cost 248 sats -- a 0.25% cost basis!
Looking at this with regard to current fees illustrates the problem pretty clearly.
| | Channel Open Size | Total Fee (sats) | Effective Cost-Basis |
|-|-------------------|------------------|----------------------|
|BTC | 10,000 sat | ~ 12,500 sat | > 100% (NOT POSSIBLE) |
| | 20,000 sat | ~ 12,500 sat | 62.5% (Extremely Expensive) |
| | 50,000 sat | ~ 12,500 sat | 25% (Extremely Expensive) |
| | 100,000 sat | ~ 12,500 sat | 12.5% (Very Expensive) |
| | 200,000 sat | ~ 12,500 sat | 6.25% (Very Expensive) |
| | 500,000 sat | ~ 12,500 sat | 2.5% (Expensive) |
| L-BTC| 10,000 sat | 158 sat | 1.5% (OK, not great) |
| | 20,000 sat | ~ 168 sat | 0.8% (Great) |
| | 50,000 sat | ~ 198 sat | 0.4% (Great) |
| | 100,000 sat | ~ 248 sat | 0.2% (Great) |
| | 200,000 sat | ~ 348 sat | 0.1% (Great) |
| | 500,000 sat | ~ 648 sat | 0.1% (Great) |
| | 20,000 sat | ~ 12,500 sat | 62.5% |
| | 50,000 sat | ~ 12,500 sat | 25% |
| | 100,000 sat | ~ 12,500 sat | 12.5% |
| | 200,000 sat | ~ 12,500 sat | 6.25% |
| | 500,000 sat | ~ 12,500 sat | 2.5% |
| L-BTC| 10,000 sat | 158 sat | 1.5% |
| | 20,000 sat | ~ 168 sat | 0.8% |
| | 50,000 sat | ~ 198 sat | 0.4% |
| | 100,000 sat | ~ 248 sat | 0.2% |
| | 200,000 sat | ~ 348 sat | 0.1% |
| | 500,000 sat | ~ 648 sat | 0.1% |
You can see that it is *much cheaper* to use L-BTC. In fact its so cheap that its fine to open 25,000 sat channels...thus keeping our hot-wallet exposure risk quite low.
### Comparing eCash / Lightning / Liquid / BTC