Liquid Network Peg-in/Peg-out Time Calculator
Estimate Transaction Times
Calculate how long it takes to convert BTC to L-BTC (peg-in) or L-BTC back to BTC (peg-out) on the Liquid Network.
Bitcoin’s slow block time and public transaction data make it a bad fit for high‑frequency trading or confidential asset transfers. The Liquid Network was built to bridge that gap, giving institutions a faster, private, and token‑friendly environment while still anchoring to Bitcoin’s security.
What is the Liquid Network?
Liquid Network is a federated sidechain created by Blockstream that runs parallel to the Bitcoin mainchain. It locks BTC on Bitcoin, issues an equivalent amount of L-BTC (Liquid Bitcoin) on its own ledger, and lets users move that L‑BTC back to the Bitcoin chain through a verifiable 1‑to‑1 peg.
Because it’s a separate blockchain, Liquid can adopt features Bitcoin can’t change easily-like Confidential Transactions and rapid block times-while still inheriting Bitcoin’s proof‑of‑work security through the peg.
How the 1:1 peg works
When you peg‑in, you send BTC to a multi‑sig address managed by the federation. After 102 Bitcoin confirmations (roughly 17 hours), the federation mints the same amount of L‑BTC on Liquid. The reverse, a peg‑out, requires only two Liquid confirmations, making the process quick once the BTC is already locked.
This two‑step system ensures that total supply stays constant: every L‑BTC in circulation is backed 1:1 by a BTC held on the mainchain.
Technical specs that set Liquid apart
- Block time: 1 minute vs. Bitcoin’s 10 minutes → finality in 1‑2 minutes.
- Consensus: federated model with 15 functionaries signing each block; 11 signatures needed for validation.
- Privacy: Confidential Transactions hide amounts while still proving they’re valid.
- Asset issuance: built‑in support for tokens via the RGB protocol, enabling stablecoins, security tokens, and NFTs.
- Scalability: ~1,000 TPS in independent benchmarks, with fees around 0.00001 L‑BTC (≈ $0.35).
Key use cases
Institutions love Liquid for three reasons:
- Fast settlement: Exchanges such as Bitfinex and Kraken move large volumes on Liquid in under two minutes, cutting overnight risk.
- Confidential transfers: The Tether stablecoin issue $420 M of USDT on Liquid, keeping transfer amounts hidden from onlookers.
- Tokenized assets: SIX Digital Exchange leveraged Liquid to list $1.2 B of equity tokens, something Bitcoin alone can’t do.
Liquid vs. other Bitcoin scaling solutions
| Feature | Liquid Network | Lightning Network | Rootstock (RSK) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Block time | 1 minute | Off‑chain channels (instant) | 30 seconds |
| Privacy | Confidential Transactions (amount hidden) | Partial (HTLCs are public) | None (transparent) |
| Native asset issuance | Yes, via RGB | No | Yes (Ethereum‑compatible tokens) |
| Decentralization | Federated (15 functionaries, 11‑sig) | Fully decentralized | Semi‑decentralized (major miner set) |
| On‑chain settlement | Yes | No (settlement via channels) | Yes |
In short, Lightning excels at micropayments, RSK brings EVM smart contracts, while Liquid focuses on institutional speed, privacy, and token issuance.
Getting started on Liquid
Here’s a quick step‑by‑step guide for a newcomer:
- Choose a Liquid‑compatible wallet. The most popular options are Blockstream Green (free, multi‑platform), Jade hardware wallet (≈ $79), or the web‑based AQUA.
- Install the wallet and create a new L‑BTC address. Back up the recovery seed securely.
- Initiate a peg‑in by sending BTC to the address shown in the wallet. Wait for 102 confirmations on Bitcoin.
- Once the federation releases the L‑BTC, you’ll see it in your Liquid balance. You can now trade, issue tokens, or send confidentially.
- To move funds back, start a peg‑out. The transaction finalizes after two Liquid blocks (about 2 minutes).
Running a full node isn’t required for most users, but if you want to contribute to the network, allocate at least 4 GB RAM, 100 GB disk, and a standard x86_64 machine.
Risks, criticisms, and how to mitigate them
The biggest headline criticism is centralization. Because only the federation can sign blocks, a compromised functionary could, in theory, stall or censor transactions. In practice, the 11‑of‑15 multi‑sig rule makes a single breach unlikely to affect overall security.
Another friction point is the peg‑in delay. Users often forget the 102‑confirmation rule and expect L‑BTC instantly. The workaround is to plan peg‑ins ahead of major trades and use the wallet’s “batch peg‑in” feature to lock multiple BTC at once.
Liquidity can dry up during network spikes, leading to occasional peg‑out delays (about 5.7 % of requests in high‑load periods). Keeping a small on‑chain BTC reserve as a backup mitigates this risk.
Future roadmap and upcoming upgrades
Blockstream announced Liquid v2 with Schnorr signatures in May 2024. Schnorr will cut transaction sizes by roughly 25 % and improve privacy by allowing signature aggregation.
Other roadmap items include:
- Full RGB integration (target Q1 2025) - unlocking more complex smart‑contract‑like behavior.
- Taproot‑based assets (Q4 2024) - adding native support for Bitcoin’s latest script upgrades.
- Expanded federation: 73 members as of April 2024, adding institutions like Swissquote and Coinbase Prime for geographic diversity.
Analysts expect the total value locked to hit $3.5 B by 2026, driven by institutional demand for private, fast Bitcoin settlement.
Quick Takeaways
- Liquid offers 1‑minute block times and confidential transactions, ideal for large‑scale trading.
- The 1:1 peg ensures L‑BTC is always fully backed by BTC, but peg‑in takes ~17 hours.
- Federated consensus trades some decentralization for speed and regulatory friendliness.
- Competing solutions (Lightning, RSK) serve different niches; choose based on your priority: micropayments, smart contracts, or institutional privacy.
- Upcoming Schnorr and RGB upgrades will keep Liquid relevant as Bitcoin evolves.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between L‑BTC and regular BTC?
L‑BTC is Bitcoin that lives on the Liquid sidechain. It’s created when you lock BTC on the mainchain (peg‑in) and destroyed when you move it back (peg‑out). The value stays 1:1, but L‑BTC enjoys faster, private transfers.
How secure is the federated model?
Security comes from two layers: Bitcoin’s proof‑of‑work secures the locked BTC, and the 11‑of‑15 multi‑sig rule makes it hard for a single attacker to compromise the network. So far, no successful breach has been reported.
Can I use Liquid for everyday purchases?
Practically no. Liquid targets high‑value, institutional trades where speed and privacy matter. Merchants would need to accept L‑BTC and handle peg‑outs, which adds friction for small‑scale purchases.
What wallets support Liquid?
Blockstream Green (mobile & desktop), Jade hardware wallet, and the web‑based AQUA are the most widely used. All three support peg‑in/peg‑out flows and confidential transactions.
Will Liquid survive if Bitcoin adds its own confidential transactions?
If Bitcoin integrates confidentiality natively, Liquid may lose one of its unique selling points. However, its token‑issuance framework and institutional federation would still provide value, so many analysts expect it to adapt rather than disappear.
Marina Campenni
October 18, 2025 AT 09:20I appreciate the thorough overview of Liquid; the guide clearly outlines the benefits and trade‑offs for traders and developers alike.
Irish Mae Lariosa
October 20, 2025 AT 16:53The Liquid Network, while marketed as a solution for institutional speed and privacy, suffers from several fundamental drawbacks that cannot be ignored. First, the federated consensus model introduces a centralization risk that undermines the very ethos of Bitcoin. Second, the 102‑confirmation peg‑in delay renders the network unsuitable for time‑sensitive strategies that demand rapid entry. Third, the reliance on a limited set of functionaries creates a single point of failure should any of them be compromised. Fourth, the confidential transaction technology, though innovative, adds computational overhead that may affect throughput under heavy load. Fifth, token issuance via RGB, while promising, remains nascent and may not achieve the desired security guarantees. Sixth, the fee structure, albeit low, can become disproportionate for micro‑transactions. Seventh, regulatory scrutiny of federated sidechains could lead to future compliance burdens. Eighth, the network’s governance model lacks transparency compared to open‑source projects. Ninth, the requirement to run a full node, though optional for most users, imposes a barrier for widespread adoption. Tenth, the scarcity of liquidity providers outside a few major exchanges limits market depth. Eleventh, operational costs for institutions to maintain on‑chain reserves increase overall expense. Twelfth, the peg‑out process, while faster than peg‑in, still depends on the health of the federation. Thirteenth, any failure in the 11‑of‑15 multi‑sig threshold can stall the network entirely. Fourteenth, the roadmap’s ambitious upgrades, such as Schnorr integration, may introduce unforeseen bugs. Fifteenth, the competitive landscape with Lightning and RSK offers alternative solutions that may outpace Liquid’s development. In summary, while Liquid presents a compelling set of features, its centralization, latency, and operational complexities constitute serious limitations for many potential users.
Nick O'Connor
October 23, 2025 AT 00:26The guide does a solid job summarizing Liquid’s technical specs, yet it could benefit from more explicit comparisons with other scaling solutions, especially regarding trade‑offs in decentralization, latency, and privacy; additionally, a deeper dive into the peg mechanism’s security assumptions would be valuable; overall, the structure is clear, and the use of tables enhances readability.
Deborah de Beurs
October 25, 2025 AT 08:00Honestly, the article glosses over the biggest problem – the federation’s opaque power structure. By letting a handful of institutions sign blocks, you’re basically handing over control to a clandestine club, and that’s a recipe for censorship. The hype around "confidential transactions" feels like a smokescreen for this centralization. If the network gets shut down, traders lose everything instantly. It’s a risky playground for anyone who values true decentralization.
Sara Stewart
October 27, 2025 AT 15:33Totally get where you’re coming from, but remember that many institutional players need that speed and privacy to hedge large positions without moving on‑chain. The federated model, while not perfect, strikes a balance between regulatory compliance and operational efficiency, and the token issuance framework opens up real-world asset tokenization that Bitcoin alone can’t provide.
Laura Hoch
October 29, 2025 AT 23:06From a philosophical standpoint, the trade‑off between decentralization and performance is unavoidable; however, the aggressive push for privacy through Confidential Transactions invites a deeper conversation about financial opacity versus legitimate confidentiality. While I’m all for empowering users, the network’s design must also consider the societal implications of hidden transfers, especially in a world where illicit activities can thrive under the veil of anonymity.
Devi Jaga
November 1, 2025 AT 06:40Oh, please. “Philosophical stance” is just a fancy way of saying “let’s ignore the real issue”-central authority. You can dress it up with buzzwords, but it’s still a federated bottleneck that can be throttled at will. If you’re looking for a truly open system, you might want to check out Lightning instead of this corporate sandbox.
Deepak Kumar
November 3, 2025 AT 14:13Hey everyone! If you’re just starting out, the best approach is to set up a Blockstream Green wallet first, then practice a small peg‑in to see how the confirmations work. Remember to back up your seed phrase securely, and don’t hesitate to use the batch peg‑in feature to lock multiple BTC at once for larger trades. This will smooth out the 17‑hour wait and keep your workflow efficient.
Matthew Theuma
November 5, 2025 AT 21:46Nice tip! 👍 Just a heads‑up, the wallet UI sometimes flips the order of the confirmation count, so double‑check you’re looking at the right number. Also, I once missed a digit in my seed phrase and had to start over – classic typo! 😅
Carolyn Pritchett
November 8, 2025 AT 05:20The article completely ignores the glaring security holes in the federation; anyone can flag this as a massive risk for investors.
Miguel Terán
November 10, 2025 AT 12:53Sure, the security concerns are real, but looking at the broader picture the network’s throughput of about a thousand TPS is impressive, especially when you compare it to the handful of transactions per second on Bitcoin’s main chain; also, the ability to issue assets directly on‑chain gives a flexibility that's hard to match, even if some governance issues remain unresolved
Shivani Chauhan
November 12, 2025 AT 20:26I have a few questions about the practical steps for peg‑ins: specifically, does the wallet automatically batch multiple inputs, and how does the fee estimate adjust when the network is under heavy load? Clarifying these points would help newcomers avoid unnecessary delays.
Ikenna Okonkwo
November 15, 2025 AT 04:00Great questions! The wallet does support batching, which can reduce the total fee and the number of on‑chain confirmations required. During peak times, the fee estimator usually adds a modest buffer, so you’ll still see a quick peg‑in if you plan ahead.
Jessica Cadis
November 17, 2025 AT 11:33From a cultural perspective, it’s fascinating how sidechains like Liquid are reshaping financial sovereignty across borders, yet the aggressive stance of some institutions can alienate grassroots developers.
Katharine Sipio
November 19, 2025 AT 19:06Thank you for highlighting that. It is essential to maintain a balance between institutional participation and community empowerment, and we encourage open dialogue to ensure equitable development.
Shikhar Shukla
November 22, 2025 AT 02:40The technical merits of Liquid are secondary to its governance flaws; without a transparent decision‑making process, the network cannot claim true decentralization.
lida norman
November 24, 2025 AT 10:13😢 I hear your concerns, and it’s heartbreaking when promising tech gets tangled in bureaucracy. Still, many users find value in the privacy features that protect their financial privacy.
Hailey M.
November 26, 2025 AT 17:46Isn’t it ironic that a network built for privacy ends up being a hot topic for critics? 🤔 Still, the ability to issue stablecoins confidentially is a game‑changer for traders needing discretion.
Schuyler Whetstone
November 29, 2025 AT 01:20People need to stop glorifyng this so-called "privacy" when it just hides bad actors. Its morlly wrong to enable illegal activity.
David Moss
December 1, 2025 AT 08:53Listen, the truth is that the elite control the federated nodes; it's a part of a larger agenda to centralize crypto under governmental oversight; consider that when you evaluate the authenticity of the network.
Pierce O'Donnell
December 3, 2025 AT 16:26Short and sweet: centralization is a problem.
Vinoth Raja
December 6, 2025 AT 00:00From a philosophical angle, the trade‑off between speed and decentralization mirrors the classic tension in distributed systems; embracing jargon like “federated consensus” helps us articulate these complexities, but the real question is whether users value convenience over pure trustlessness.