Bitcoin Forum

Many people seem to be fan of LN while any others are directly opposing this. I'm not an old guy here nor I'm a techy guy in bitcoin. I only know the basic which I need. However, so far, LN seems to be a good addition. But why some people say it's not good?
What are the advantage vs disadvantage of LN? Can you please put your opinion? I would love to see the both side.

The future of cryptocurrency depends on to Lightning network. Lightning network is a new technology and they are still finding bugs and problems and solving them. Lightning network is still not ready to handle large scale transactions. In lightning network, the real funds are frozen while the value transacts. I'd say there are not any disadvantages with the LN network, just some problems to get solved.

Here's how Harpeet Singh Gauri puts the advantages and disadvantages of LN

Pros of the Lightning Network

Lightning network was invented for speed and lower costs. Although the degree of increased efficiency is still to be known, Layer 2 solutions will generally enable a significant increase in transactions per second Micro payments can be carried out with better efficiency with the lightning network and it will be instantaneous. Lightning network has also started support for altcoins making it horizontally scalable The initial transaction fees in this network are cheaper compared to that of the original bitcoin network Lightning network has the same security as Bitcoin’s main chain while keeping transactions in the layer two till the time they are settled on the main chain.

Cons of the lightning network

Major criticism of LN is that the parties will have to have “fund” the channels. If I shop at a coffee shop, I will have to have so much funds in my channel that connect me to the coffee shop. These funds are just lying dormant until the channel is closed and transaction registered on the main chain – which costs money. A major drawback of the lightning network is that it does not support offline payments. This is an issue to users who do not have internet connectivity 24 hours in a day. There are some experts who believe that Centralization might be encouraged in the payment portals. This makes it quite similar to miner centralisation. Since these transactions are sent off the chain, they aren’t tracked by the main channel, leading to privacy concerns. With all points in perspective, Lightning network serves as a brilliant alternative at this point for Bitcoin transactions.

I think Lightning Network can bring bitcoin to the whole world because with LN network and apps on it, people will have faster transaction speed and they will feel more comfortable in daily usages. Now, we have some platforms accept deposits after 1 confirmations so it takes less or more than 10 minutes to have visible balance (depends on how luck that user is and the time between two blocks of bitcoin). Let think of 10 minutes for one confirmation, in theory, people do feel not comfortable. LN can solve it but till now it has not yet fulfill its goal.

Either way LN is optional, you can use it or not if you want. In my opinion, i should not be used except in the exceptional circumstance that you need an instant payment. Most payments don't need to be instant, people commonly wait hours or days for wire transfers.

And, it is currently not recommended for large sums (and may not be desirable for that anyway).

Solution to which problem specifically?

There used to be a clamor for Bitcoin to finally function as a real money, one which people could use to buy a cop of coffee without the need to pay a fee which could even go higher than the coffee itself and without the need to wait a considerably long time. If you are referring to that, I guess this is it. Micro-payments is what LN is especially tailored for.

But if the transactions involve huge remittances across countries, I guess you better stay on-chain.

Lightning by itself isn't a "solution" to the scaling question, it's just one of the many ingredients being worked on that help towards that goal.  Given that SegWit allowed for slightly higher on-chain throughput, anything else that can allow additional throughput without centralising the network, such as efficiency savings and off-chain ideas are now being given higher priority.  Once those methods are exhausted, then we can look once again at on-chain increases if necessary.  This method is widely considered the most responsible way of moving forwards.

I'm personally convinced that all the people who still choose to raise a stink about Lightning are just embittered sore losers (and maybe a couple of forkcoin shills thrown in the mix, too).  They took their own opinions far too seriously and still aren't willing to compromise and accept the fact that they share this network with other users and don't get to have it all their own way.  There is a cost to be paid when on-chain throughput is increased.  So until those securing the network are willing to bear that cost, the sore losers are going to keep whining about it.  They have no valid arguments to counter the issue where they generally want other users to pay a cost they probably aren't willing to pay themselves.

As I've recently commented in other topics, Lightning on mainnet is only two years old and very much under active development with many aspects still subject to change.  It's not considered "production-ready" to on-ramp the general public yet.  Right now, I'd say its intended audience is largely what tend to be called "power users", or people with a strong technical understanding who know exactly what they're doing.  But over time, as it evolves and the software improves, the learning curve will get a little less steep and it will become more beneficial for the average user to take advantage of.

What do you think is one of the biggest problems in front of Bitcoin? According to my theory, transaction speed. He is working on this in Lightning Network. It is not possible to know exactly whether they will be successful. But it can certainly be a useful work for the future.

Lightning network is just for small transactions and they still developing it to improve as much as they can. they started the developments not too long ago that's why we see some bugs and lacking some important stuff. however, if they fully developed this technology into the like of XRP, then Bitcoin will no longer have the problem to become the main payment system of the stores worldwide. Some important information is here on this video if you want to learn more about Lightning Network.

Why Lightning matters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3HulqfzyYE

The reason is simple - they hate Bitcoin because they are supporting one of the shitcoins, and Lightning Network will make nearly all competitors of Bitcoin obsolete. I literally never saw a single Bitcoin supporter who would opposite Lightning Network - almost all of them agree that it's the right way to approach scaling, and at the very least people agree that even if it will fail, it won't affect the Bitcoin protocol, so it's a pretty safe thing to try.

Lightning Network is a solution for faster and cheaper transaction, a new solution that has been on the air for a long time that hasn't been on the ground for application. Some people say it is not good because it does not support any offline transfer although it is a new technology, whether it does not support that it is possible to have that kind of feature in the future.
As I say, one beneficial characteristics of lightning network is, it increases the handling transaction of a coin example bitcoin, you can have faster and cheaper transaction with bitcoin using the the lightning network. But aside from it does not handle any offline support, one major thing that is off for lightning network it has a problem when it comes to tracking and tracing.

Lightning isnt even an ingrediant for a cake.. its the cracker you nibble on while you wait for the cake to rise.
problem is the chef forgot to put he cake oven on. so your left nibbling on crackers

crackers are a snack that can go with anything. its not limited to only cake

its the thing that distracts some people hunger while they wait for the cake to bake.. and wait and wait. basically devs are saying stop arguing about the cake just eat some crackers.

a cracker is not a cake a cake is not a cracker

Speaking of embittered sore losers and/or altcoin shills who are still kicking up a fuss about Lightning, look which two users suddenly appeared in the topic almost a minute apart.  Almost as though it was a coordinated effort on their part...

*narrows eyes in suspicion*

Pros are very clear:
- Much cheaper to transact
- Allows also a fast transaction

Cons:
- Transparency and security is far more lower. Since LN transaction works to allow numerous transaction outside of the main blockchain.

The biggest advantage of LN is the ability to increase the transactions per second figure of Bitcoin. 1 million transactions per second is possible with LN.

The best advantage, in my opinion, is ability to send only 1 satoshi to anyone who can accept it.

If bitcoin wants to compete with banks and their payment networks we need solutions like LN.

Would it be technically possible to implement the LN protocol into the BTC protocol? I think that as long as these are two separate protocols on two separate networks, LN will not be able to succeed. The fact, for example, that you need to get two different wallets, transfer BTC to the LN wallet, open channels, etc. is a pain in the neck. The advanced user might understand how this works, but regular user can't give a damn.

I agree with you, Lighting Network is good solution. It will help Bitcoin to quickly and lower fee transaction.

Lightning Network is a protocol that expands and speeds up blockchains. It is designed to address some of the technical limitations of the Bitcoin Blockchain, but can be implemented on any blockchain. The Lightning Network was presented as a potential solution to scale Bitcoin for millions of transactions per second and reduce the cost per transaction by only 1 cent.

i only use BTC. years ago i used LTC as well but i dumped thousands of them in giveaways years ago. i want btc to grow and extend its utility
however doomad is happy to advertise alt networks. because LN is an alt network.
its not even limited to bitcoin so it offers NO unique feature to bitcoin. anyone can lock up litecoins or vertcoins and then play with LN. thus reducing bitcoins unique features/abilities.

doomad knows this but he doesnt care about btc's longevity. he just wants people to lock coins up with custodians and while people play around with other tokens on other networks while all the real coins are playing in his favour and he gets to keep them.

much like how banks gained the gold while people played with bank notes
next phase of the scheme is to get the banknote/token players to not want their gold/btc back at the bank/custodian account/session close... by offing 'swaps' for silver/ltc and copper/vertcoin. which come with cheap near free exit prices

doomad cares nothing for btc network. he just wants the commercialisation profits

doing the math on transaction:byte ratio in 2009 the transactions were lean 221 byte average. obviously with more novel scripts it hit a peak of 600byte average per tx. before 2017 it never exceeded a average amount.
yet infebruary-april 2018 the average hit 800 and the overal average for 208-19 was above 600
bytes per transaction has increased. not decreased

heck there still has not been a day that has exceeded the 600,000 tx a day estimate (note: 7tx/s 2010 estimate)

as for the scripts/nrratives of it being about data.. devs want to surpress the transactions('no coffee transactions please') under the fake ruse of data. yet they denied 2mb but then stupidly allow 4mb for their bait and switch scripts

it is all funny but it becomes too obvious when certain people are advertising alt networks as the key to user experience

Caring about the network takes the form of not being reckless and trying to push those who secure the network away by draining their resources and overburdening them.  You are the greedy narcissist who believes other people should pay the cost of scaling and repeatedly espouses the absurd notion that only big businesses should be able to enjoy the privilege of running a full node and that regular users should only have the option of SPV.  You don't care if your selfishness centralises the network.

Anyone who has a strong understanding of how Bitcoin actually works will understand why none of your desperate attempts to undermine Lightning are in the best interests of future users or the network itself.

anyone who actually cares about BTC and not alt networks knows less transaction on BTC is less fee's for miner.
anyone who cares about BTC knows that the 2mb base block proposal is not as hardware reckless as segwits 4mb
..oops you didnt realise that did you. 2mb base vs 4mb weight =4mb weight is more reckless (yep you debunked your own narrative)

telling people to get off the btc network is not helping the network.
telling people to use custodians and for the users to only use litewallets. also reduces the 'node count' because users are no longer using btc network daily so dont bother being full nodes.

again LN is causing more harm to the btc network..


bank notes have their niche. but a bank note is not a gold nugget
LN millisats have their niche. but LN millisats are not btc

vaulting up gold/btc and then playing with bank notes/millisats may have its own benefits to some people.
but sell LN on its own separate network benefits
however trying to pretend that LN is bitcoin and then pushing narratives that bitcoin should not progress and instead people should be persuaded to go off the bitcoin network and use alt networks as a solution.. is not helping bitcoin

i still laugh at the old narrative
'2mb is bad the network wont cope'
'4mb is good.. but more transactions in that space is not good'

the game of that narrative is to make bitcoin the currency of the rich commerce of banks as their settling currency. while users play with funny money on lite wallets
so LN fangirls.
you can actually make a success of LN and actually adopt more people. if you just tried to be honest about its differences, it own features and limitations.
yep people actually trust things more if they are atleast told the truth about its limitations and risks.
so stop pretending its as secure as bitcoin. but doesnt even have a network wide transaction validation method that bitcoin has (blockchain)

actually try to mention why LN is not bitcoin. and what makes it better/worse. then when you finally start being honest with people you will find your niche

Actual caring for the network should be making design-decisions to maintain Bitcoin as a decentralized network, that scales out. Proposals supported by a minority, that centralizes the network towards the miners is not "caring for the network", or how it works, or where will it be in 10 years.

Plus, there are big block altcoins in the market that religiously "worships Satoshi's white paper", why not support the "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin narrative"? It "bilaterally split" to serve your need.

This makes no sense in my opinion. BTC was designed as an online payment alternative to offline FIAT in order to help people conduct financial transactions in an anonymous and decentralized manner. Offline payments was never the goal which is why this isn't a disadvantage at all.


Even if the fees is less, you will end up spending a lot for maintaining the channels which is why it is only feasible when working with particular users on a regular basis. Overall, it isn't always cheap.

My opinion is that the Lightning Network seemed like an exciting solution to the scalability problem which encompasses transaction fees and time as the consequences, but in the end it turned out to be an unsatisfactory solution. It's not easy to use, and some of those geeky enough to use it are against it due to centralization and ideology issues among other things. So while Bitcoin itself certainly needs a solution for small transactions, I don't think the LN is the future. I hope someone comes up with something better and actually usable.

Yeah, people criticizing it conveniently ignore that LN is hardly what we'd call mature enough to be used by regular users like me. Really, to get to this stage being only 2 years old is pretty amazing in itself. Bitcoin didn't have this much traction in 2011, and we're still struggling to get majority of services onto Segwit (never mind native) so it should be perfectly normal to see LN get even less traction yet we're seeing a lot of positive signs.

Is this true? I guess such shitcoins fee isn't low if you compare the digit? It may be low in comparison with the price since price of the said shitcoins are too low. Moreover, such coins don't have enough tx comparing with bitcoin.

What's the security flaws you are talking about, some lights? I have little idea about the transparency though.

I know there are a lot of people who are against LN but Lightning network is very useful for me. This will make our BTC's future easier. I think the lightning network has taken BTC's technology a few steps further, because by using lightning network we can transaction instant, this has makes many of our tasks easier and faster. on the other hand, micro-payments are viable in lightning network, it is most helpful for those who do small project on online. On lightning network there are more functions for programming payment, this will make bitcoin easier for us.

I see, bitcoin transactions all over the world is increasing and continuously growing. Lightning network could provide a solution and in simple explanation on how I understood it is that, it works like a telegram. In telegram app, we can send messages directly to our contacts in an instant, in bitcoin network, what we send needs to be confirmed but through lightning network, the time it takes for the transaction to be successful is less, as well as the transaction fee. It's similarity to telegram is that, it recognizes your contacts, or previously conducted transactions to make it easier for the network to find the shortest path between you and the person whom you want to send bitcoins to.

if you want to read more about it, you might visit https://cointelegraph.com/lightning-network-101/what-is-lightning-network-and-how-it-works (https://cointelegraph.com/lightning-network-101/what-is-lightning-network-and-how-it-works)

I have not used the Lightening Network before, although I have used a wallet that has Lightening Network, but you have to activate the Lightening Network feature before it works. It doesn't work in every wallet, only a few of them are carrying that feature.

I have not seen the need for it and I guess I'm okay with the normal Bitcoin transaction speed rate and that's why I don't bother myself about using it. And the way I see it, Lightening Network is not meant for everyone, unless you're a tech geek and you want to go beyond what's already created. I have not seen anyone that is against the lightening network, so I guess it's good, and I don't see anything wrong with it since the main purpose is to make things quick.

I've been touching myself over BTC for 7 or so years now. Not for a second has it occurred to me to get into lightning networks. I tried some test versions and none of them worked.

Channels, watch towers, routing. It's all gibberish to me. I'm going to need some major hand holding to consider it.

Of course most of us are not used to seeing things develop in real time like this. We arrived after Bitcoin was up and running. I expect in almost all other areas of life we use stuff oven ready from companies or that's already been battle tested for years by others.

Which means it someone else's problem and obsession for quite some time to come. Wake me up when it's done.

To the big blockers saying LN will compete in fee collection vs. miners. Is it OK for LN to compete now? Your 1sat/byte coffee-transactions won't be confirmed for another 7 days.

major con: It is already recon to work as a mixer, so no compliant adoption possible, that it intros a barrier into a very unsecure layer ,that is stupid -

Bitcoin just does all of that without any LN, ...  - on chain (version BSV shows it)

I've used the Lightning Network before and it's extremely fast and efficient. It's still got a long ways to go in terms of adoption, availability, user friendliness ( the app I used, only available on android "eclair", is very non-user friendly, it takes some skill to learn how to operate it) but it's potential is so high.  I still have a load of questions about how it will all work when fully implemented, but it's promise is very real.

You also want that we should be thankful to you for teaching us about the real Bitcoin, BSV, and that we should start HODLING this wonderful coin, right?

https://twitter.com/andrespollan/status/1185455536084541441

Bitcoin is no longer become a payment system and a tool to sending money. Most people will choose an altcoin like Ripple or Matic which have a fast transaction feature and low fees per transaction.

Lightning Network, I was remember when the first time to know bitcoin exactly 2017 ago. I hope this system can be runned sooner at that time but now I have another concern of if especially for security issue. Lightning network will bring bitcoin become centralized not decentralized as we proud of it. So we don't need it anymore, yeah that is my wish as of now.

Maybe a stupid question. Wouldn't it be possible to include something like the LN into the BTC protocol? I feel that it's already difficult to convince people to create a BTC wallet...if we have to convince them to also open a LN wallet on top of the BTC we are doubling the obstacles to adoption.

still laughing at the LN fangirl windfury.

people that actually want to use the BTC bitcoin blockchain without huge fee's. the people that dont want to be diverted to other networks.. windfury wants to call them 'centralists' and 'big blockers'

yet those that proposed ONCHAIN scaling.were satisfied with a 2mb block proposal.. without weighty scripts to bloat and decrease transactions.. thus actually allow a true 2x transaction growth

yet windfurys fanclub NEEDED 4mb for their other network divert. but without a 2x tx growth let alone 4x
making windfury the big blocker bloater of spammy scripts and less tx /block

yet those wanting the proposed ONCHAIN scaling. would have made more people to want to protect their funds on chain because they would have been using the chain regularly

yet windfurys fanclub NEEDS people to use lite clients and use custodians on another network. meaning centralising bitcoin while users play with something else

kinda funny how he doesnt even realise the reality
if less people are moving funds onchain. they have less need to secure the chain.
so advertising other networks that dont need to touch the blockchain for months. is more of a divert away from bitcoin. not a incentivise to secure bitcoin.

its just that simple

Some people think that it's centralized because the transaction runs on a differenct chain. In my opinion it really is a good second layer solution to Bitcoin congesting transaction and we can see the effects can that the LN brought to the Blockchain network. The only disadvantage it has to me, is not so friendly environment and it's still has no proper GUI.

Bigger blocks to scale on-chain has its own debate why it's not good for the network's security, franky1.


Reality? There's already two other "Bitcoin networks" that has hard forked to bigger blocks, BCH and BSV. Why aren't the people, "who actually want to use on-chain transactions WITHOUT huge fees", not using them?

lol - BSV has highest txs count

and who says that with professional mining setup security goes down? Better DBs / infrastructure are run by many profs (for profit!)  than some funny toy-girls losing coins and wealth on LN and bills

because those altcoins are not used for merchant services
you cant buy pizza using them altcoins making them useless

you do realise the basics right. that a transaction is only worthwhile if it has a purpose
or are you being spoonfed the stupid narative that btc is just an experiment it doesnt matter if it fails.
yep your friends have said that script so i expect you probably are gonna believe that

however btc is starting to go down that same route of not wanting people to buy things using btc and be just used as a gold vault for people to then play around with custodial notes on another network. measured in a non 8 decimal unit of measure.

but hey if you want to keep playing the 4 year old myth that 2mb-4mb is bad for the network. then why are you still kissing and not biting the ass of the devs that now think 4mb bloat is ok.. (when it suites their agenda)

atleast update your stupid scripts.
you cant argue that 2mb was bad for the network if now 4mb is acceptable.
so drop that myth that the debate was about hard drive bytes. it got debunked in 2017. the day the devs themselves allowed 4mb
your about 3 years out of date with that script. but you still keep pushing it.. atleast recognise that it got debunked the very day core said yes to 4mb weight

what you next have to recognise
a thing your not realising yet is the 4mb allowance of bloat is not actually 4mb of transaction scaling because they kept the implied 1mb base limit for majority of transaction data
meaning its less efficient use of data.
meaning. yep core are wasting more data for unproductive transaction utility

its only bloated scripts(witness/signatures) that are only for a specific set of transaction types.
if you think that loads of people love and want segwit. then read on. and surprise yourself
there is only one main reason why segwit addresses are used. because they 4x up the tx fee of legacy transactions.
take a look at how many USERS are using your beloved LN.
its not millions. its just a few thousand

oh.. by the way.
sipa is stil asking for donations in legacy address.
strange how he doesnt want donations on segwit addresses.. he is the segwit implementer after all

when a chef refuses to eat his own food. dont expect a nice meal

but yet when shown actual things like devs allowing 4mb bloat that debunks your 2mb is bad myth
when show that not everyone is even using segwit addresses
when shown that the adoption for LN is not huge for users. but large for custodians. you have to atleast start to see reality. and stop just kissing ass to particular companies/devs

...
and to pre empt your next script. because you already hinted it, and your just repeating doomad propaganda scripts
you probably going to double down and say 'if you dont like core control. go play with another network'
sorry but that game dont play with me
im sticking with btc. but gonna keep highlighting the ignorant people that want people off the network. and the controlling few that are not helping bitcoin scale (emphasis bitcoin(BTC) not other networks)

I've seen different networks like Lumino and such which are similar in principle to Lightning network, I wonder, do all these face the same pros and cons or are these just particular to Lightning?