Bitcoin Forum

According to an article on ambcrypto the number of lightning nodes  are now on 5.376 with around 20.000 channels and with a total numbers of 575 Bitcoin.

https://ambcrypto.com/bitcoin-btcs-lightning-network-capacity-is-now-worth-over-2-million/


The Lightning network are really starting to show its future potential

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2mYm8BXEAAb_hx.png:large
https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/822356218349953024 
12:12 AM - 20 Jan 2017
Andreas M. Antonopoulos



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvL8ZxZV4AEZ7XG.jpg

Jameson Lopp
5:54 AM - 24 Dec 2018
https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1077200836072296449

Nice numbers and nice graphs. But I see no info about how much BTC was actually moved around in these channels. I mean, it would be nice to see on what scale do people actively use LN, not just check it once "because it's cool".

However, it's good to see it's growing.

people don't just put money in their Lightning Channels for fun, they put it there to make transactions and there are some big channels that have done it to support the network and process more transactions.
however i don't know how you can count how many transactions have taken place in this network, if at all possible to count. but you can check out some of the stats some of the merchants released. for example i remember the bitrefil saying they reached 1BTC payment about 6 or 7 months ago. haven't checked for updates though.

analogy:
exchanges HOARD hundreds of thousands of btc.
but trade volumes of the non blockchain exchange databases are not hundreds of thousands.
they are just hundreds being day traded (rinsed and repeated)
emphasis on a non blockchain system

secondly with LN
while BTC(8 decimal) is locked up in factories (like bitrefill recently announced) they then create channels with users and give them unconfirmed/unaudited balance of 12 decimal values.
these transactions do not have a bitcoin blockchain parent UTXO as an input.. but give a user a grandchild unconfirmed balance output where the parent input is also a unconfirmed input

all so that at the end of the 30 day lock. the user cant just broadcast a tx onchain, but have to send it through bitrefill and request bitrefill to aggregate the balances and charge a user to broadcast back to the bitcoin network using a 8 decimal TX. or (bitrefill prefers) to get users to just open a new channel. which they can do because the user only gets to handle 12decimal transactions so bitrefill are not afraid of early broadcasts

That's correct. However, they still report quite big volumes. My knowledge of LN is still not great, but I expect at some point people will also send BTC via LN in both direction multiple times (pretty similar to rinse and repeat) and still have big volumes. I think that the ones making those channels can make some stats with these numbers. Am I wrong?



Even after 30 days the sum can be calculated. And from my understanding that sum is not related to the "advertised" "capacity" of those channels, so I'd like to know it, since it would give a better view about the current "success" of LN (although it's still beta).

yea 12 decimal values get aggregated(calculated)
but bitrefill are in the control seat.

remember the promises of LN
it was: spend 'your' funds instantly 24/7
became: let a factory control the funds and hope they are online when you need their authorisation

it was: close channels and broadcast when you like
became: submit a close request to a third party and hope they dont stiff you

i think people are forgetting the whole point of bitcoin. and they just want fiat2.0

Damn bro, you *still* here fighting the disinfo! You got more patience than me ;)

True, but it hasn't really hit the mainstream yet, and it likely won't until user experience is simplified. Then again, it is in beta, which is usually reserved for hobbyists as far as software go.

If you think about it though, $2m is nothing for a payment network. We have a long road ahead of us.

bitcoin is in beta and its been 10 years.
using the Beta excuse is just saying they can stall things for as long as they like, promise anything and if a flaw is found then and only then do they backtrack their over promises and just say well "its an experiment" "it's beta"

i think too many people that dont actually use LN or have not even done the research on its limitations/flaws, are too excited about the over promised utopia. and are happy to say bitcoin cant scale purely to advertise this altrnative network thy have little clue about

so heads up. heres an actual LN, core and blockstream dev who actually openly is telling people some of the flaws that he says himself will be unlikely resolved
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570

I'm not responding to anyone in particular, but I personally don't believe that the Lightning Network is the be-all end-all for Bitcoin. I just think that, overall, it will be for the benefit of the ecosystem. I get that there's politics behind it, which is why there are people from opposing sides preaching all the time, but eh.

If it turns out that I don't like the finished product, I won't use it. If it never progresses to that, I won't use it. I imagine most casual users are in the same position. I don't get the fuss.

the fuss is that LN is not a bitcoin feature. its its own separate network for multiple coins to use (thus not something to concentrate on giving bitcoin uniqueness)
bitcoin had to b modified to become compatible to the commercial network known as LN. LN was not modified to fit bitcoin.

the fuss is that BITCOIN i will emphasise this BITCOIN NETWORK needs to scale, yet years of delays, excuses and backtracking and 'beta/experiment' blah is now turning into bitcoin cant scale so hand bitcoin to factories(banks) and let them give you unconfirmed/non blockchain audited 12 decimal pegged tokens. as the only road to go down.

the fuss is even if LN works for a niche of daily spenders(yp even in utopia its not fir for everyone). the bitcoin NETWORK still needs to scale to manage such. and also cope with the people that dont want to use LN...

and yet. years later. BITCOIN has not progressed.
infact many are already starting to say using other networks to exit LN is a future.
the same old banking/thunderdome tactics.
gold and silver may enter silver may leave

we even now have the community making out that being a true bitcoin fan (bitcoin maximalist) are bad.

sorry but th fuss will continue if the whole ethos of bitcoin being an open barriers digital cash. gets morphed into a bank vaulted coin to play around with non blockchain unconfirmed funds that are no better than fiat.

What kind of progress are you seeking? Scaling? Genuinely asking.

Also, doesn't Bitcoin Cash exist for people who are adamant on on-chain scaling? I'm curious as to why you want to change this Bitcoin, when there's another version that aligns with your ideologies better. I've also seen you claim that both coins are Bitcoin, so it should be fairly easy for you to pick one and stay with it. I personally choose to ignore the politics and focus on the fact that it's a good thing that there are two teams who are trying two different approaches for one goal.

I strongly disagree because bitcoincash is not a different team and it is not an honest approach. any "other team" who wanted to create something useful would have created something new as in from scratch not build on top of bitcoin by using its name and try to gain popularity that way.
in my eyes anybody who does that will automatically invalidates their own project no matter what. we already have a lot of altcoins, some of which are unique without trying to stick to bitcoin and its name like a parasite.
and lets not forget about the problems that they have been causing for bitcoin by stealing hashrate.

As I understand it, this is one of the options for scaling bitcoin, if I am not right, please correct me. I am very glad that the transaction has become much faster and now you can buy for example things for bitcoins and do not need to wait long for the transaction to be formed. Can I get a link to a website where bitcoin transactions are visible in a graphical image ?)

Pegged? There's no "peg" in the Lightning Network. There is no issuance of "pegged" tokens. All the Bitcoins in Lightning are real Bitcoins stored in a 2-of-2 multi-sig address, with all transactions stored locally, and ready to be broadcasted on-chain.

Don't you believe that Lightning can increase Bitcoin's utility by improving its divisibility?

I think the amount of bitcoins on the Lightning Network is irrelevant, because it was created to serve a specific purpose, which is to handle most of the micro payments that are currently done on-chain. Yes, the amount will show that more people are using the Lightning Network, but the amount should not be the only indicator of it's success.

The on-chain amounts must be much larger than the off-chain alternative, because that is what it was developed for.  ;) Once larger amounts are transferred on the Lightning Network, it defeats the purpose for what it was developed for.  ??? 

i don't remember that being a promise at all. the security model of LN always depended on a locktime mechanism in case the other channel participant was unresponsive.


"close channels and broadcast when you like" is the ideal situation. and LN participants have incentive to be good actors---being unresponsive as a merchant loses you customers and being unresponsive as a hub loses you future fees.

depending on locktime with unresponsive counterparties is just a worst case scenario, same as depending on anti-theft transactions with dishonest counterparties.

A warning before everyone expects too much from Lightning. I share franky1's opinion that it might have its own niche in the communty, but not mass adoption.

I also believe that there is too much importance given that Lightning is about low fees. Fees in LN are priced in market rates, and it cannot be assured to be very low all the time.

how much the fees are going to be will depend on the level of adoption. it is more like a competitive market (similar to blockchain and how a transaction you send has a competitive fee). but the competition is no longer on block space since there is none in LN. the competition is with nodes, you can always choose a setting to go through a route that gives you the lowest fee. so if some nodes decide to ask for higher fees, they won't get to process any transactions.

this isn't like mining where the cost per confirmed transaction is quite high. the overhead to run an LN node is extremely low and there is no limit on transactions that can be routed (vs the block size limit in bitcoin). there are no market forces to push fees up. assuming decent channel liquidity, fees should approach zero.

i'm guessing people planning to run LN nodes to collect routing fees will be disappointed at their revenues.

I feel this is better for users who want to use the Lightning network, although some people consider this impossible and strange but LN users don't care about that. The development of the Lightning Network in 2018 I think there are many problems because according to some sources they do not understand how to use the LN network so there are cases of cases that have lost their funds. For now, it seems that there have been many improvements, as evidenced by the increase in LN services used by users. Interesting article to read by Lightning Network users: The growth of the Lightning Network has been remarkable. But there’s a catch. (https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2019/01/15/the-growth-of-the-lightning-network-has-been-remarkable-but-theres-a-catch/) And  Lightning Network’s Infrastructural Build Out (https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2019/01/18/from-reckless-to-wumbology-lightning-networks-infrastructural-build-out/)

I'm just putting a small warning out for the people who spread FUD and gaslight around. But I believe the fees will always be "low enough", but in times when the fees are not "unfairly cheap", fudsters don't say I didn't warn you. Hahaha. 8)