yeah, it's far from too expensive but at the same time as you probably know lightning payments use a source-onion-routed protocol and only timing info is visible to intermediate LN nodes, and many ecom operators are running tehir own LN infra like btcpayserver, i was using a VPS with this some time back, and have used several others as well, so it really is confidential between customer and vendor when you say 0.03% is that by volume (sum of the sats value) or by individual transactions, because individual transactions are where the onchain fees come from, not the volume (leaving aside the cost of transactions with large number of component UTXOs) if it's by volume then darthcoin the lightning maniac is right about that because he means transaction count i dunno about any stats on the actual utilization of LN in terms of volume, i've got some beefs with the entire protocol over the matter of channel balance being opaque and this being the main cause of routing failures (especially combined with shitty routing nodes running on flaky ADSL connections in the middle of Australia and shit

The meme's about privacy potential using LN versus a L1 service And regarding cost, you're saying that when it's only 2 sats/vbyte

0.03% is total BTC capacity of the network currently according to

The Mempool Open Source Project®

Explore the full Bitcoin ecosystem with The Mempool Open Source Project®. See the real-time status of your transactions, get network info, and more.

If we use tor capacity as the metric (more pseudo privacy, since the glowies operate most of the exit nodes) that number drops to 0.08503%.

I'll say it when the cost per vbyte is 10x that because I'm not some kind of redditard socialist that thinks txn's are supposed to be free.

if you measure it by percentages then the sub-USD$1 equivalent transaction is already too expensive to be economical, but there is a point in the supply to demand ratio of a good where the cost is virtually zero, of course this depends on the cost of production being low enough versus the volume produced i'd argue that one of the problems we have with lightning relates to the lack of any kind of market in fee rates this is also a problem related to the opacity of channel balance as well, and both are based on dumb assumptions (that public relays should have private balances in their channels, and that only actual businesses are going to run LN routing - which is patently stupid because efficiencies are inherently better with specialization) haha... yeah, it's so early it's retarded... zaps are literally the first almost feasible example of lightning's efficiencies having a visible advantage