I think one of the bigger problems facing the broader Bitcoin ecosystem is the 
lack of Lightning wallets for desktop. Mobile wallets are not really an issue, 
but as far as I know for desktop builds, there's really only Electrum, and Zap 
Wallet which support Lightning.

The alternative is interacting with the LN node directly, which probably won't 
be so bad, but it would be better if they carried GUI wallets like BItcoin Core 
does. Because windows and buttons help with mass adoption of pretty much 

I may even consider developing a Lighting wallet given the circumstances.


On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:13 PM, Michael Folkson <michaelfolk...@protonmail.com> 

>> probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher than 
>> the sum of the outputs
> And prevent perfectly reasonable transfers of value and attempted Lightning 
> channel closes during fee spikes? If I want​ to close my Lightning channel 
> during a protracted fee spike where I have to pay an onchain transaction fee 
> greater than the amount I am receiving you want to stop me doing that? You 
> are impinging on a valid use case as well as requiring a consensus rule 
> change.
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)
> GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F
> Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 13:58, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev 
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher than 
>> the sum of the outputs
>> On Mon, May 8, 2023, 7:55 AM Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev 
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>> I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin 
>>> mempool during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20 
>>> having such a high volume, real bitcoin transactions are being priced out 
>>> and that is what is causing the massive congestion that has arguable not 
>>> been seen since December 2017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion 
>>> because that was only with 1-5sat/vbyte.
>>> Such justifiably worthless ("worthless" is not even my word - that's how 
>>> its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and normal use of 
>>> the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was intended 
>>> to be used as.
>>> If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, should we take an 
>>> action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, miners, and 
>>> users. Considering that miners are largely the entities at fault for 
>>> allowing the system to be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin 
>>> transactions is being disrupted right now. Although this community has a 
>>> strong history of not putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely 
>>> necessary - an example being during the block size wars and Segwit - should 
>>> similar action be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits into 
>>> the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which 
>>> defines the validation rules for Taproot scripts) which has allowed these 
>>> unintended consequences?
>>> An alternative would be to enforce this "censorship" at the node level and 
>>> introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Taproot 
>>> transactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit the road 
>>> until minimum next release.
>>> I know that some people will have their criticisms about this, 
>>> absolutists/libertarians/maximum-freedom advocates, which is fine, but we 
>>> need to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We 
>>> indirectly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible before. 
>>> So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kind 
>>> of congestion can never happen again using Taproot.
>>> -Ali
>>> ---
>>> [1]: 
>>> [https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/](https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/?outputType=amp)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev mailing list

Reply via email to