[arcticbull]

Is someone in the third world chomping at the bit to pay $40 to open and close a single LN channel when that’s 10% of the GDP per capita of some of those countries you plan to help? Probably not. The only places you can get away wanging people with such egregious fees simply don’t need crypto.

[uh-quan]

> Is someone in the third world chomping at the bit to pay $40 to open and close a single LN channel when that’s 10% of the GDP per capita of some of those countries you plan to help? Probably not.

In such cases, there is no reason such users can't "enter" bitcoin through a second layer such as the Lightning Network.

Why would they do that if it isn't real bitcoin?, you might ask. Well, for one, their local, tin-pot-dictator created currencies are often worthless, meaning that even second-layer bitcoin is a far more sound and reliable currency.

And who is to say $40 for an on-chain transaction is an "egregious fee"? It turns out having access to the world's most secure, decentralized, unstoppable, set-in-stone, uncensorable, trustless, non-inflationary monetary network is a valuable thing. Maybe so much so that $40 per on-chain transaction is a bargain in the bigger picture.

[arcticbull]

> In such cases, there is no reason such users can't "enter" bitcoin through a second layer such as the Lightning Network.

Yes there is they need a channel, which costs $20 to open and $20 to close.

> And who is to say $40 for an on-chain transaction is an "egregious fee"? It turns out having access to the world's most secure, decentralized, unstoppable, set-in-stone, uncensorable, trustless, non-inflationary monetary network is a valuable thing. Maybe so much so that $40 per on-chain transaction is a bargain in the bigger picture.

Ah you're a comedian too!

[uh-quan]

>Yes there is they need a channel, which costs $20 to open and $20 to close.

No, they don't need to open a channel via the blockchain. They can have an account with a third party, for example.

[arcticbull]

If you do that you lose 100% of the guarantees of the blockchain -- that account is centralized, permissioned and trustful. At that point they don't need the blockchain, smh.

[uh-quan]

Although it's true you introduce some level of trust in that scenario, it's patently false that you lose all the benefits of bitcoin. A company offering accounts via Lightning would have all of the standard reasons not to cheat customers.

And again, keep in mind we are talking about access to money -- a money that cannot be debased -- for those people living in the poorest and most terribly governed areas of the world, where debasement, hyperinflation, and the utter destruction of savings is commonplace.

Even if they don't get the full benefits of on-chain bitcoin transactions, they will still be light years ahead of where they were relying on failed local currencies. A massive improvement even in the worst case scenario, helping to lift real-world folks out of poverty. This is something to applaud and cheer for, not shake your head at or mock.

[arcticbull]

@quartus, you're right, I apologize.

I was referring to the idea that a $40 channel fee might be palatable or even negligible for folks such as those in Malawi whose GDP per capita is $400 per year.

[quartus]

What does calling someone a "comedian" add to the conversation?

[spurgu]

You pay zero with the Phoenix wallet: https://phoenix.acinq.co/