u/LP0956

Para aqueles que usam ou já usaram a Phoenix Wallet, eu tenho algumas dúvidas sobre como a Phoenix Wallet se comporta no depósito inicial e como as taxas são aplicadas nesse contexto.

Pelo que eu entendi, quando uma Phoenix Wallet totalmente nova recebe seu primeiro depósito — seja via on-chain ou via lightning — a carteira acaba criando um canal inicial com aproximadamente a mesma capacidade, assim como também com a mesma liquidez de entrada (inbound liquidity) e liquidez de saída (outbound liquidity) muito semelhantes entre si, tanto se o primeiro depósito for via on-chain quanto se o primeiro depósito for via lightning.

Se esse meu entendimento estiver correto, eu gostaria de compreender melhor dois pontos relacionados a isso:

Primeiro, qual é a diferença estrutural em como a Phoenix lida com o depósito inicial dependendo de como ele venha (via on-chain ou via lightning)? Em ambos os casos, o resultado parece ser a criação de um novo canal lightning com saldos e capacidade finais muito semelhantes. O que exatamente determina esse resultado tão parecido, e o que acontece “por trás dos panos” que faz com que ambos os métodos de depósito converjam para estados de canal tão semelhantes na fase de inicialização da carteira?

Segundo, por que a estrutura de taxas é diferente entre os dois métodos? O primeiro depósito via lightning cobra uma taxa de 1% além das taxas de mineração na blockchain, enquanto que o primeiro depósito on-chain cobra apenas as taxas de mineração na blockchain. Ainda assim, em ambos os cenários, parece que a ACINQ (a empresa responsável por manter infraestrutura de nós e canais da rede lightning, que é a criadora da Phoenix Wallet) fornece liquidez de entrada, imobiliza capital em canais e se utiliza da mesma infraestrutura "nos bastidores" para criar um canal lightning funcional TANTO SE VOCÊ FEZ O PRIMEIRO DEPÓSITO NA SUA CARTEIRA VIA ON-CHAIN QUANTO SE VOCÊ FEZ O PRIMEIRO DEPÓSITO NELA VIA LIGHTNING. Então, se a taxa de 1% serve para compensar a provisão de liquidez, a infraestrutura e o capital imobilizado no canal, fico me perguntando por que uma taxa semelhante não é aplicada também ao primeiro depósito on-chain, já que essencialmente parece ocorrer o mesmo processo de criação de canal independentemente do tipo de depósito?

Em outras palavras, qual é exatamente a diferença técnica ou econômica entre esses dois fluxos iniciais de depósito que faz com que ambos resultem em estados de canal semelhantes, mas apenas um deles esteja sujeito à taxa adicional de 1%?

Agradeço desde já a quem puder sanar essas minhas dúvidas!

I have some questions regarding how Phoenix Wallet behaves on its initial deposit and how fees are applied in that context.

From what I understand, when a brand new Phoenix Wallet receives its first deposit — whether via on-chain Bitcoin or via Lightning — the wallet ends up creating a very similar initial channel in both cases, with comparable capacity and inbound/outbound liquidity after setup.

If that understanding is correct, I would like to better understand two related points:

First, what is the structural difference in how Phoenix handles the initial deposit depending on whether it comes from on-chain or from Lightning? In both cases, the result appears to be a newly created Lightning channel with very similar final balances and capacity. What exactly determines this similar outcome, and what is happening under the hood that leads both deposit methods to converge to such similar channel states at initialization?

Second, why does the fee structure differ between the two methods? The first Lightning deposit incurs a 1% fee in addition to on-chain mining fees, whereas the first on-chain deposit only incurs mining fees, and yet in both scenarios, it seems that ACINQ provides inbound liquidity, locks capital into channels, and uses the same underlying infrastructure to create a functional Lightning channel. If the 1% fee is meant to compensate for liquidity provision, infrastructure, and capital being locked in the channel, I am wondering why a similar fee is not applied to the first on-chain deposit, where essentially the same channel creation process appears to take place.

In other words, what is the exact technical or economic difference between these two initial deposit flows that results in both producing similar channel states, but only one of them being subject to the additional 1% fee?

I have some questions regarding how Phoenix Wallet behaves on its initial deposit and how fees are applied in that context.

From what I understand, when a brand new Phoenix Wallet receives its first deposit — whether via on-chain Bitcoin or via Lightning — the wallet ends up creating a very similar initial channel in both cases, with comparable capacity and inbound/outbound liquidity after setup.

If that understanding is correct, I would like to better understand two related points:

First, what is the structural difference in how Phoenix handles the initial deposit depending on whether it comes from on-chain or from Lightning? In both cases, the result appears to be a newly created Lightning channel with very similar final balances and capacity. What exactly determines this similar outcome, and what is happening under the hood that leads both deposit methods to converge to such similar channel states at initialization?

Second, why does the fee structure differ between the two methods? The first Lightning deposit incurs a 1% fee in addition to on-chain mining fees, whereas the first on-chain deposit only incurs mining fees, and yet in both scenarios, it seems that ACINQ provides inbound liquidity, locks capital into channels, and uses the same underlying infrastructure to create a functional Lightning channel. If the 1% fee is meant to compensate for liquidity provision, infrastructure, and capital being locked in the channel, I am wondering why a similar fee is not applied to the first on-chain deposit, where essentially the same channel creation process appears to take place.

In other words, what is the exact technical or economic difference between these two initial deposit flows that results in both producing similar channel states, but only one of them being subject to the additional 1% fee?

I have two different devices, both with the Phoenix Wallet installed (obviously using different seed phrases).

For the first deposit into each, I sent 20,000 sats on-chain to the wallet on the first device and I sent 20,000 sats via Lightning to the wallet on the second device. After doing it, in both cases, the channels were created with very similar capacity and liquidity (both inbound and outbound), regardless of whether the deposit has been made via on-chain or via Lightning.

However, for the second deposit into each, I sent more 10,000 sats via on-chain to the wallet on my first device (which increased my channel capacity by 10,000 sats without ACINQ needing to resize this channel, since I sent the money from the blockchain into the lightning network); and, in contrast, for the wallet on my second device, I sent more 10,000 sats via Lightning (which means that 10,000 sats of my inbound liquidity - the ACINQ side - was transferred to my side of the channel - my outbound liquidity).

That said, I got a bit confused. My question is: why does Phoenix Wallet behave similarly when receiving sats for the first time — regardless of whether the initial deposit is made via on-chain or via Lightning — but the wallet behaves differently for the second deposit onward depending on whether I receive the sats one way or the other?

I have two different devices, both with the Phoenix Wallet installed (obviously using different seed phrases).

For the first deposit into each, I sent 20,000 sats on-chain to the wallet on the first device and I sent 20,000 sats via Lightning to the wallet on the second device. After doing it, in both cases, the channels were created with very similar capacity and liquidity (both inbound and outbound), regardless of whether the deposit has been made via on-chain or via Lightning.

However, for the second deposit into each, I sent more 10,000 sats via on-chain to the wallet on my first device (which increased my channel capacity by 10,000 sats without ACINQ needing to resize this channel, since I sent the money from the blockchain into the lightning network); and, in contrast, for the wallet on my second device, I sent more 10,000 sats via Lightning (which means that 10,000 sats of my inbound liquidity - the ACINQ side - was transferred to my side of the channel - my outbound liquidity).

That said, I got a bit confused. My question is: why does Phoenix Wallet behave similarly when receiving sats for the first time — regardless of whether the initial deposit is made via on-chain or via Lightning — but the wallet behaves differently for the second deposit onward depending on whether I receive the sats one way or the other?

Olá, pessoal!

Alguém que comprou o Kuba Mali 2 pode me informar se ele dá problema de demorar mais ou menos um minuto até começar a reproduzir o áudio de um vídeo no YouTube ou de uma música no Deezer, por exemplo? Ele demora mais ou menos um minuto pra começar a reproduzir o áudio de uma música ou de um vídeo que já tá sendo reproduzido, aí toda hora tenho que ficar esperando o fone começar a reproduzir o áudio e, após isso, tenho que voltar o vídeo ou a música do começo (já que perdi mais ou menos um minuto da música ou do vídeo por causa disso).

Será que somente o meu Kuba Mali 2 veio com esse suposto defeito, ou o de vocês também apresenta esse tipo de problema (ou talvez isso seria algo normal do fone)? Em caso positivo, como vocês fizeram para contornar isso?

Agradeço desde já pela atenção de todos!