Oddbean

I literally don’t even think about it. But I got enough liquidity for small payments to not be an issue a long time ago. So I probably haven’t paid a swap fee for anything less than 1mil sats like a year. I know some people who got hit with one on 10k sats, so I can see why that would be painful.

It's not bad when you zoom out My math is, if I were to hypothetically load $1,500 a month in there to spend on expenses each month, I'd pay $6 in fees overall which is totally manageable for what you get from Phoenix It's better to think of it that way than trying to compare to your own node or other custodial options

People are so conditioned by the legacy financial system that they don’t understand the benefit of self custody and aren’t willing to pay for it despite being gouged by banks in so many ways. https://image.nostr.build/52053dcbfab4d6ff23c0871713f6a6e39d1cf764a7ce6dba73f846944a8f268a.png

Fees for the convenience I guess? Price to pay for using bitcoin at lightning speed? I don’t understand why everyone complains about fees? I always pay the highest fees on chain for speedy payments n e way idk why don’t you?

While I don’t mind paying for a service, I made a full tutorial for noobs on Phoenix right before the update rolled out and then updated it (the next day lol) and noticed the new fees. Old fees: 0.05-.5% 1st Channel Open: 10,000 sats Subsequent Channel Opens: 3000 sats New fees: .4% plus 4 sats One Time Channel Open: 1000 sats - I have since done the math, and if it is correct, (pls can someone check!) the first 2.5 million sats one sends incurs 10,000 sats in fees at .4%, so one *could* say that is in place of the original 10k sats channel open fee. Two points here: - It is impossible however to know how many +4 sats are embedded there as it would depend entirely on how many transactions were sent. For argument, let’s say it was x1000 2,500sat payments, then that would be an extra 4000 sats of fees on top of the first 2.5mil sent. If it was x10,000 250 sat pmts, then it would be an extra 40,000 sats of fees on top of the first 2.5mil sent. And if it was x100,000 25sat zaps for eg, it would be an extra 400,000 sats of fees on top of the first 2.5mil sent!! Ofc there are many variables here, since the old fee structure included 3000 sats for each new channel open (after the initial 10k for the first channel). This could be lessened or avoided though by opening a larger first channel. - Second point: After the first 10k sats are accounted for, one continues to pay 4 sats (sometimes 5, see pics) per transaction forever. In the end, if I am thinking about it correctly, I think the main issue is the ‘plus 4 sats’ on *every* transaction. This makes it especially unusable for zapping or for micropayments of any kind. Note: I haven’t mentioned miner fees as those are obviously added when funds are spliced in. Would appreciate hearing thoughts. While I love the new splicing, it appears to come at quite a cost if I am doing the math correctly. Final note: I am aware there are obviously many variables as to how Lightning is used, which would also change all the numbers a lot https://i.nostr.build/G40e.jpg https://i.nostr.build/dB3k.jpg https://i.nostr.build/OQKY.jpg

Phœnix works great Phoenix has high fees , 0,4% is a fiat like fee . It doesn’t do 10x or 100x less than fiat which is required for mass disruption Phoenix is a full node on my phone. But it can only connect to their node. Lots of Room for improvement and it expect they are aware of it , just takes time.

People should understand that in a bitcoin economy, the merchants will not have to pay 3% to accept bitcoin payments. So better pay 0,4% in fees to send bitcoin, instead of pay indirectly 3% when buying products using fiat money.

people are not unhappy with fees. they are unhappy with being aware of the fees. people happily pay fees every day, it’s just that the fees are hidden. it all boils down to “sender pays for fee,” which is not something people are used to. normally the fee is baked into the price they pay the receiver