Can it be said, in a general sense, that Flash channels and Raiden are made for the same purpose? Both function in a way that a prepaid channel is being created and entities within exchange value off chain. Whenever any party decides to abandon the channel, they may do so.

Remark: I know the Tangle and Ethereum are two different implementations (Blockchain vs. DAG) however I think this question is still valid since they both fall beneath the DLT umbrella and it looks to me that they are designed to enable fast micropayments, off chain.

  • 2
    As far as I know, it is pretty much the same. In IOTA, however, you can create these channels without any fees Commented Jan 9, 2018 at 18:52
  • Seems like this is the case. I have found some references and will mash up an answer. Commented Jan 10, 2018 at 14:32

1 Answer 1


I will conclude that both Raiden and Flash channels generally serve the same purpose. I'm basing my conclusion on this blogpost alongside David Sønstebøs answer on this Q&A session, I quote:


What's your opinion about the Lightning Network upgrade for blockchains?


I consider it an ad-hoc half-measure to an inherently limited protocol. To me Lightning Network is only potentially useful for certain things, but even for those we have Flash Network

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.