<blockquote>
  <p>Is all of this effectively 3 transactions?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No, assuming you mean '3 on-chain transactions'. It is useful to make a distinction between an 'on-chain transaction' and a payment being sent. To open a LN channel requires one (on-chain) transaction, and to close it requires another. </p>

<p>But while the LN channel is open, the participants can send each-other an unlimited number of payments using the channel (up to their channel capacity, of course). These payments are not recorded on-chain, instead their LN nods keep track of the channel's current state. This allows for more efficient use of blockchain space, while simultaneously giving the channel participants a mechanism for sending payments efficiently and without needing to trust their counter-party, or a third party. </p>

<p>Further, the channel participants can also route payments to other LN users, assuming that there is a valid route with the proper capacity available. A highly connected LN graph could allow all users to make payments to each other, without needing to constantly publish on-chain transactions. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-28T22:54:10.690Z
2019-01-28T22:54:10.690Z
chytrik
<p>I'm watching <a href="https://youtu.be/8zVzw912wPo?t=541" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> Lightning Network presentation by the original authors.  At 9 minutes in, he notes that all the network sees will be a transaction to the multisig address and then a transaction to Alice for 0.8 BTC and a transaction to Bob for 0.2 BTC.</p>

<p>Is all of this effectively 3 transactions?  Would it not be cheaper and clog the blockchain less by simpling having Alice send 0.1 BTC to Bob and then another 0.1 BTC to Bob and have 2 transactions instead of 3?</p>

<transactions><blockchain><network>
Lightning Network: Is it creating 3 transactions instead of 2?
Bill Bisco
# Lightning Network: Is it creating 3 transactions instead of 2?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-01-28)

I'm watching [this](https://youtu.be/8zVzw912wPo?t=541) Lightning Network presentation by the original authors. At 9 minutes in, he notes that all the network sees will be a transaction to the multisig address and then a transaction to Alice for 0.8 BTC and a transaction to Bob for 0.2 BTC.

Is all of this effectively 3 transactions? Would it not be cheaper and clog the blockchain less by simpling having Alice send 0.1 BTC to Bob and then another 0.1 BTC to Bob and have 2 transactions instead of 3?

**Tags:** transactions, blockchain, network


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-01-28. Score: 3

> Is all of this effectively 3 transactions?

No, assuming you mean '3 on-chain transactions'. It is useful to make a distinction between an 'on-chain transaction' and a payment being sent. To open a LN channel requires one (on-chain) transaction, and to close it requires another.

But while the LN channel is open, the participants can send each-other an unlimited number of payments using the channel (up to their channel capacity, of course). These payments are not recorded on-chain, instead their LN nods keep track of the channel's current state. This allows for more efficient use of blockchain space, while simultaneously giving the channel participants a mechanism for sending payments efficiently and without needing to trust their counter-party, or a third party.

Further, the channel participants can also route payments to other LN users, assuming that there is a valid route with the proper capacity available. A highly connected LN graph could allow all users to make payments to each other, without needing to constantly publish on-chain transactions.


---

