Bitcoin Forum

I just did my first every lightning network payment from a smartphone wallet to a desktop wallet ( 2 different wallets, muun and phoenix )
Now, I think I had my fee set way to high for the feww bucks I sent ( 3000 sats ),
but man it was almost instant, like less than a second.

Someday I will set up a node.

but its not settled. its just "sent"

much like all unconfirmed payments
you can see it instantly but doesnt mean its confirmed and settled

lightning network deals in unconfirmed payments

bitcoin network has always had unconfirmed payments displayed in the same "instant"

dont be fooled into what the lightning salesmen tell you lightning is. because it doesnt work the same as what they say.

also in lightning you never set the fee you want to pay. instead when you insert the destination. it finds all possible routes and either only displays the cheapest or gives you the options

That is lightning network for us all, it takes just little time for transaction to be completed, it is almost an instant payment. You can run your own node so that it will completely be your own coins. Not your node not your coin, it is your coin though, but you can run you own node to have full control over your coins.

You are getting it wrong, it is not about unconfirmed payment, when the person is ready, he can send the coin onchain, lightning network is layeer 2 solution, you do not have to confuse people about it, as long as it is his coin when he receives the coin, why then talking about unconfirmed transaction?

If a channel is opened and a transaction is confirmed to send payment into the multisig lightning network channel, also a confirmation is needed when you send it back onchain.

Lightning network is a layer two solution and you should not say anything is not confirmed.

If I open a channel with my friend or a restaurant, we accept payment anytime we see it, also if we use wallets like muun, phoenix and others, we accept payment.

when you decide to finally broadcast.. that broadcast is THEN the same as broadcasting a unconfirmed tx onchain. because thats what you are then doing..
however before a broadcast, is even less like a bitcoin broadcast unconfirmed payment session
EG

e. confirm into block is confirm into block and deemed settled/final immutible/complete
d. broadcast onchain itself is not a blockchain confirm
c. close session itself is not a blockchain confirm
b. holding 'current state' is not a blockchain confirm
a. deciding on a route to take and having the recipiant sign acceptance is not a blockchain confirm

you making a payment to a restaurant (a) is 4 steps away from settlement
bitcoin relaying a unconfirmed tx (d) is 1 step from settlement

relaying a unconfirmed bitcoin transaction shows up "instantly" in lots of explorers and recipients mempool.

but lightning payment (a) and bitcoin relay(d) are not settled. thus both unconfirmed.

Dear users, please don't let franky1 confuse you. He's a forum scum who's been trying to change users' opinions based on his multiple times debunked arguments for reasons yet unknown. I presume due to his ego and tenacity to not admit he's wrong.

When you send funds via lightning, and the payment is confirmed by both parties, the transaction is settled, done. Money are sent. New balances are set. Whoever disagrees with this, and tries publishing a non-latest state is punished financially.

blackhat and his forum-wife doomad do not understand blockchains and what they represent. they dont like blockchain nor know about them. they love broken systems that dont use blockchains

you will see thempromote things to make bitcoin network less useful and more expensive just to recruit people over to sub par networks like lightning
they hate how i ruin their snake oil sales promises(that never flourish)

---

moving msats via onion payments) on another network is not the same as moving bitcoin

if the current state is not in a bitcoin block. its not settled

.. black hats buddies game is to scam people into thinking people dont have to nor should settle their value back to the bitcoin network.. thus stay within lightning forever long term until people dont have value left on their side(nothing left to give back to themselves as change). thus have to close out to give out settled balance to others. and to refill more value.

its like old banking scheme
deposit all your gold. play with bank notes. but make it hard difficult expensive to try getting your gold back. and make it sound like you dont need to get your gold back..

I just tried another payment, about 10 bucks US,

on my 'muun' wallet it quoted a 7 cent fee

when I received the payment ( again, only took about a second ) my fee was 91 cents, and I was given a message that a new fee channel was opened for me to receive the payment.


So OK, I guess that is done to ensure a fast payment.
I am also guessing that if people don't want fees to go over a certain  amount they can set that up.

So can someone tell me... is the fee based on the amount you send?
because last night, I was playing around with sending like, a  penny per transaction, and the fee was a fraction of a penny

thanks for any info you can give

If you setup your own channel, there should be no fee. Assuming you have your own node and connect to another node to set up a channel, the transaction you will make on that channel should be free. Fee can vary, the lightning network node runners are the ones that set the fee. The more the hubs to route your transaction too, the higher the fee.

Cool, thanks for the info...
this is even more of a reason for me to set up a node.

Can you please clarify what desktop wallet you used exactly for lightning transactions, since Muun and Phoenix are both mobile only wallets?
Maybe it's possible to install them on computer using some Android emulator, but that is not exactly what you would call a desktop wallet.

In the blockchain, the more the transaction weights in vbytes, the more bitcoin you pay. In lightning network, the more bitcoin you send, the more bitcoin you pay.

Okay, but note that this still isn't like running in a green meadow. You'll have to run a computer (or RPi) all day long, take channel backups, be aware with who you open a channel with, and you'll still pay some in fees, because you'll always have to pay someone whom you don't share a channel with.

The fee for a Lightning Network payment is not directly based on the amount sent.  Instead, it's based on a few factors, including the size of the payment channel and current network conditions.

  When you open a payment channel on the Lightning Network, you must commit funds to that channel.  This pledge transaction has a certain size, and the commission for opening the channel is based on the size of that transaction.  This fee is paid once, when you open the channel, and is not related to the amount of any subsequent payments you make through that channel.

Muun is mobile only ( Im using Android )
but with Phoenix, I was able to install it via the Mac App Store ( IOS ) on my Mac Mini, and it works great. ( with Muun on the Mac App Store, it specified that it was iPhone-only )

Also to the people above who answered some of my questions... thank you, I would give you merit points, but apparently I have no merit points to give :(

Yeah LN is pretty sick. I haven't used it myself but I've watched videos of people using it and they hit the button and literally a second later (or less) the other person has received the money.

As a network protocol its got some tradeoffs and still seems to need work and improvements that will hopefully hide some of those tradeoffs, but in terms of being able to send cheap and instant payments with Bitcoin its pretty amazing.


Bitcoin base chain is great for storing wealth and moving money around and buying things on the internet, but LN makes Bitcoin work for buying things in person where you need that instant payment.

Yes. Also, how long has LN been around? I think the first transaction was only in 2019... so it's just a baby, and it already performs beautifully... maybe a few kinks to work out, but it just needs a few years and it will only get better.

I believe it was January 2018 when it officially launched, if I'm remembering correctly, but it was in like super alpha stage for that first couple years. Even now it seems like it is in like a beta stage, it works but there is still plenty of development to do for it to be super reliable and easy for the average person to use and not have occasional issues.

codebear. there are more flaws then you know of

lightning is not the solution for everyones spending habits
there will ALWAYS be a liquidity issues. and it will get WORSE the more populated it gets..
thats just basic math you can work out on a spreadsheet of running scenarios


lightnings development model has flaws when it comes to scaling offchain

I'm pretty sure it'll get better the more populated it gets. The liquidity problems are due to not enough...liquidity! This is a small network problem, not a large network problem. There's also split payments (don't know if they've actually been adopted yet but I heard about them a while ago) which would solve a lot of the liquidity issues. I mean unless you're just talking about the liquidity of needing to have bitcoin on either end of the channels to move money in either direction, but that's just an inherent property of the protocol and everyone understands that, and that just makes LN not be the ideal solution for all types of Bitcoin activity.

I do agree LN is not the solution for everyone's spending habit. As it does have tradeoffs, namely needing liquidity in your own channels, so for instance LN isn't something where you can just receive money without spending it, because it general you have to spend what you take in, and take in what you spend. It's a great solution for spending any money you receive, which is what the average person does anyway, but definitely doesn't work for all scenarios. But for the things it does work for LN is a pretty fantastic as a super cheap basically instant bitcoin payment network. I would say the main issue for users would be needing to keep the state or have a watchtower that keeps your state. I don't know if that is something that can be solved with some improvements or if that is just gonna be an inherent part of how it works. I would say that's the only major 'flaw' that will grow worse the more LN gets used because node's states will become large with all the tx records (at least from how I understand it works). I did hear in a podcast once that this could be fixed with an update to the Bitcoin protocol but that update would weaken Bitcoin itself so that doesn't sound like a good idea haha, but I have no idea what improvements and workarounds at being worked on for LN.

i know you have not used lightning. but before shouting utopian dreams and telling people all thats needed is patience and wait for growth.. please actually try running scenarios

heres one for you
you say one work around is to use more channels to "split payments"
well if people have say average of $1000.. and cant push through $1000 around a network due to many reasons

if everyone then splits that $1000 into 4 channels of $250
guess what.. everyone is then in the same boat of now not being able to move $250 around the network because everyone has divided the max liquidity
where some channels on routes are unbalanced

lightning will not be used by someone that wants to move whole bitcoins or multiple bitcoins
so its not a solution for everyone and unless you have multiple channels when one route fails you end up needing more balance per channel then you intend to spend

right now it has a
100% success at 0.000020 BTC (~$0.45)
95% success at   0.000273 BTC (~$6.11)
75% success at   0.005000 BTC (~$112)
50% success at   0.020000 BTC (~$448)
25% success at   0.050000 BTC (~$1120)
5% success at     0.168867 BTC (~$3780)
1% success at     1.000000 BTC (~$22300)

Notice when franky1 talks about the Bitcoin base layer, he pretends to care about third-world countries and people in poverty.  But the moment he starts talking about layers on top of Bitcoin, he only cares about people with thousands of dollars to throw around.  Seems a little duplicitous.

Lightning isn't really geared towards larger payments.  It's ideal for the repeat purchase of your regular morning 'coffee and a bagel' or whatever you might do in your daily routine.  But it's not remotely useful for making a one-off purchase of a $4000 gaming laptop, for example.  Just use the base layer for big purchases like that.  You'd likely want the extra security the base layer confers.

Using LN means you are trading some security for speed.  It's a compromise, so consider your usage carefully.

notice how doomad suddenly now wants to sound a few IQ points higher then last month

he is admitting
there is a liquidity limit where it only works well on small amounts
admitting when he wants channels open for a year its only use is coffee/bagal utility
admits the security flaws exist

but one thing he keeps sliding into is his utopian script of being "on top"

heres a tech lesson
lets use internet systems
a top level domain is a main network director. then there are sub domains for certain services
lightning and L2 are sub networks not "top networks"

and as for me talking about large payments.
well its the lightning adoration brigade that call lightning a solution for bitcoiners.. rather than a niche for Bengalese or begals

bitcoin works for all amounts. so anything trying to replace it or "solve it" should do the same.. lightning does not do the same  or solve it. it is a niche service for small purchase items
things doomad does not want to see happen on bitcoin

This might veer out of topic but remember when DEXs (even those on Bitcoin like Counterparty) had this liquidity Catch 22? There's not enough users because there's not enough liquidity, there's not enough liquidity because there's not enough users... the liquidity pool model that those non-Bitcoin DEXs use seemed to have solved it.

I suspect a similar model will encourage liquidity growth in LN. Seems to me the simplest route... and I'm ready to be attacked, only saying this as a simpleton.

This topic is evidence (something sorely lacking in franky1 posts about LN) that ordinary people can benefit from using Lightning.  Try putting your personal feelings to one side and just accept that some people are going to use this network that you clearly despise.  Is it not better that such people are armed with useful information about how to use LN safely, rather than them having to sift through useless franky1 opinions on what constitutes a layer or empty fear-mongering about millisats?  

Re-read the topic from the beginning.  I was the first person to highlight that users are trading security for speed.  That could have been you, but you were too busy trying to make LN look scary and unappealing.  That's what irritates me most about you.  You clearly don't care about the users, or what might benefit them, you just want everyone to buy your sad little fear campaign.  Surely at this stage, even you can concede it's a bit pathetic.  Please try to be less petty and focus on giving users information that might actually help them.

unlike you who tried so hard with the uptopian dream and promise previously that lightning was ontop(subliminal for better) than bitcoin and a solution to scaling for all bitcoiners and all the other blub you have recited since 6 year ago

you snake oil pitches failed. so now your changing your scripts.. slightly

it is nice to see your being more rational by actually saying that there are flaws. but you still have not tried to actually fully engage the risk awareness aspect that helps users the most

your still in the fake promise recruitment mindset. (well a more relaxed version of it). but still you still try to oversell and over promote a subnetwork with limited use.

from 2017-2022 you have been beating the drum that bitcoin should not and will not scale anytime soon because you want ALL bitcoiners to have patience while lightning populates. where in your script bitcoin should only scale once lightning has achieved mass adoption of scale of users


however people need to be aware lightning gets worse the more people adopt it. and bitcoin devs should actually try to scale bitcoin while their sub-employee devs try a different subnetwork design model

you however love the middle-man model of fee taking. thus you want lightning to grow even at the risk of users security

and yes i know your angry that i ruin your sales pitch each time. but i usually laugh at you. and find it nice when you actually for once start to sound rational and start to speak of the flaws and limits. its just a shame you are still swaying towards the promised land recruitment scheme rather than the user risk awareness support

lol. I like how when other people simply describe what Lightning is you claim it is "shouting utopian dreams" haha.


What is with your extreme LN hatred? You just really want a centralized big block Bitcoin? Like, they've literally already made that, its called BCH and BSV and they are failed altcoins that nobody cares about and are controlled by a few people. So if that's your dream for bitcoin just head to those communities and you can stop worrying about the progress of building Bitcoin into global money.


Also I don't think you know how networks work. The larger the network, the more routes, and therefore the more liquidity, also as Bitcoin increases in price the more $$ will be available in channels for liquidity. Hence the larger the network and the larger Bitcoin gets, the more liquidity.

Also I don't think anyone claims LN will be used to move whole bitcoins or multiple bitcoins (ie tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars around). Though with split payments it is possible, it's just that LN isn't needed for that use case. If you're gonna move money around like that there's no reason to not do it on the base chain. LN is for small payments and mass transactions. LN is for paying for stuff instantly (like when you are buying something in person) and for everyday spending, like spending $0.10 micropayment, or $5, or $10, or $100, or $300.

Also it is normal to have multiple channels open. That's expected. If you don't have multiple channels set up you're simply using Lightning incorrectly. So of course if you use Lightning incorrectly you're going to have liquidity problems because you aren't allowing your node to connect widely to the network but instead are just relying on a single connection which may or may not have good liquidity before it connects with the wider network.

Finally, your explanation of split payments makes no sense. The liquidity problem would be if your payment is too large to go through channels. With split payments it can put several smaller amounts through multiple routes, thereby solving the liquidity problem for large payments. In a large connected network this solved liquidity issues for large payments. Your description of split payments would have to assume payments are only being done from one section of the network to another, instead of payments being done all over the network. Like, you are literally making nonsensical assumptions simply to make LN sound bad.

Multiple channels per node (a common sense expected Lightning practice) and split payments and a large network solve just about any liquidity issue. Pretending like those things aren't done, or don't do anything, just to argue against LN makes you look pretty uninformed tbh. I mean, in another thread you just wrote that Bitcoin is centralized and Ethereum is not so maybe you are just really uninformed. Weird.

you admit you have never used lightning
but it seems your becoming its new sales ambassador

seems weird how your suddenly going 100% hype for something you admit you have not used

by the way the more users. means either more hops to get to destinations or more channels to decrease the hops.. either way it means more liquidity issues.

you can try this out in drawing form or excel spreadsheet for free to run scenarios.. TRY IT!

there are many flaws of lightning. so before jumping forward with your prepared sales pitches. try to learn about lightning first. or use it without your "best case" utopian hat on.. and and run some scenarios. so you can have an accurate view of it.

oh
and here is the thing
lets say before that example i gave
it was a average of $4000 and your response is then "split it"

and then we came to the $1000 channels
guess what. then we enter the $1000 limit argument where because some routes are already used by others not everyone then has the full $1000 to move.. again the inability to move a full $1000 you then again shout "split it"

see the snow ball effect


i want you to draw out a network. of say 12 users where each user has about $780 locked in on their side.

now try and draw out a network where everyone on the network can happily pay upto $780 to anyone else

good luck

What's the problem if people consent with this? The only problem is that you can't enforce your sad, pro-censorship rationale into them, because the more noise you make, the more disgraced you seem to the overwhelming majority of Bitcoin users. Not only don't you know how lightning works, but you're in favor of forcing your opinion into other people's computers --supposedly for their benefit-- and all that in the most pro-freedom network on the planet.

For the gazillionth time, why the fuck aren't you forked off already? You found the worst project on the world to dictate how it must work.

Your point of view is so bizarre. LN literally gets better the more people that adopt it. Do you not understand how network effects work?

There is one issue with a more used network in that you have to store more state data on the LN node to keep the state history. Hopefully they will figure out a solution to that as that seems to be the main issue in just being able to use Lighting endlessly and cheaply without needing to occasionally close and reopen channels. But every other aspect of Lightning improves dramatically as the network gets larger.

And middle-man model of fee taking....that's literally how blockchains work. Miners (or stakers) take a fee for running the network. I mean its less a middle man and more a network operator fee, but both Lightning and blockchains work the same way, LN just lowers that fee taking dramatically, which is a good thing, not a bad thing.

lol. So anyone that points out to you how LN works is suddenly a "sales ambassador".

You really don't understand the network effect do you? More users means more routes, more connected, more liquidity, and likely LESS hops, not more!

I am well aware of how Lightning works. Have been for years. I haven't said I know how to set up a LN node. That would indeed involve me doing it. But I have read plenty about Lightning over the past 5 years and understood well how it works and what the drawbacks are. Your mistake simply seems to be not understanding what the network effect is are really strangely thinking that the network effect is a bad thing rather than a very powerful thing. A small payment network has fewer routes and less liquidity. A larger payment network has more routes and more liquidity. There, I literally just solved for you your main problems with the LN. Now you can start speaking honestly about the LN, or be a "sales ambassador" as you call it lol.

you mistake "total liquidity" vs "liquidity per channel" when you speak of the adoption rate of the network
you have much learning to do

also when playing the "pass the parcel" of value between middleent between the payer and payee.. the more the network grows the more middlemen need bigger liquidity to serives lots of small liquidity users.

once more ill make it simple for you

instead of reciting the same lame scripts ("read plenty" "but dont know how to set it up")
actually run some scenarios and learn how it works

you are new to lightning from real utility(lack of) outside of your "read plenty" scripts. i have been testing it out for years.. so take this as some advice.. LEARN what you are trying to sales pitch
and dont just recite what you have read.
actually figure out how it actually works outside of the sales pitches

learn its flaws and think about telling people for their benefits of the risks. so they can be aware instead of trying to be so pro-utopian best case

i set you a challenge in my last post. try it.
goodluck

you can do the challenge in a drawing or excel or even in ascii art. it costs you nothing
just try to learn how it works by running scenarios. it will enLIGHTEN you

challenge:
i want you to draw out a network. of say 12 users where each user has about $780 locked in on their side.

now try and draw out a network where everyone on the network can happily pay upto $780 to anyone else

good luck

..
right now all i see in the last few posts is the normal madhatter duo and their new child all trying to snake oil sales how lightning solves so much. but seem to all lack actual knowledge and just reciting sales pitches they tell each other.

Maybe you need to spend more time using it instead of drawing your deluded scribbles in crayon or playing with spreadsheets that are populated with make-believe numbers.  You can trick yourself into believing anything if the data is sources solely from your imagination and not reality.

Challenge:
STFU about your ridiculous "scenarios" (read: delusions not based in the real world).  Actually use the damn thing and tell us about your experiences.  Things that ACTUALLY HAPPENED.  Not fairytalefrankyfuckwittery.

ive done both.. you seem to do neither you just chant the best case scenario and once every 4 years pretend you suddenly are not chanting the best case scenario

your just angry that your sales pitches do not result in more recruitment

lightning is not 'the solution for mass adoption to not require bitcoin scaling..'
so stop selling it as the solution of such

lol, so your big argument against a large robust interconnected LN working is to give an example pretending there's only 12 users lol. Sorry but there are already a lot more than 12 LN users and they use it just fine, putting your 12 user example to shame.

Again, you don't seem to understand the idea of network effect. Maybe look it up before you try to give your sales pitch of turning bitcoin into a centralized altcoin. If you were right then LN wouldn't work....but it does! And it works better as it grows because of the thing you obviously don't understand.

LN is not a network of 12 people with single channels. LN is an interconnected network of many nodes with multiple channels each widely connected throughout the network. How about you try drawing that up in except and ascii art haha


You give vague statements of LN not working, pretending there is no such thing as a network effect, pretending that split payments don't work, and imagined examples. Yet you fail to explain why the LN works, despite all your silly attacks on it. Instead of a manufactures example, how about you look at 12 nodes existing on the LN and see if they can pay whoever they want on the LN, the answer is that they can.

I think you need to step away from the excel spreadsheets and actually learn about the LN. You sound like someone who has read BSV conspiracy posts about Bitcoin and just say random negative things about Bitcoin and LN without knowing what you're actually talking about. If your premise is that LN doesn't even work with 12 people, and it gets worse the larger it gets, then LN would NEVER have worked, and yet it has thousands of users and works fine. I know the reality probably breaks your brain but that's okay cuz you're just a troll dude.

If it sounds similar, there's probably a reason (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108368.msg49693128#msg49693128).  It's almost as though faketoshi and franky1 share the same messed up mindset.  Both unbelievably narcissistic, both pathological liars, both with misguided views on what scaling means, both unwilling to admit when they're wrong.  I would have suspected they were the same person if I didn't know otherwise.

@code bear

i wanted you to think about scenarios. but thought YOU need to start small with something simple which YOU could easily think about.. and then challenge two was to test your by expanding the scenario out

but just like doomad instead of even thinking. you just want to avoid thinking and reply with insults

very boring insults

oh.. and i pre-date the BSV shit. heck i even pre-date doomad
and codebear YOU admit you have not used lightning.. so maybe try to learn about what you are advertising
and think about the things people want to know. like the risk awarenesses.. rather then the fluffy cloud stuff you read somewhere

The thing I don't understand about franky is why isn't he aiding for Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin SV yet? Almost every thing he's arguing for is being implemented in those forks. Large blocks? Ignorance on censorship resistance? Conspiracy quarks and pathological liars for project operators?

I mean it is pretty clear he hates those forks, but it is also apparent if you have a few discussions with him, that these are the forks he belongs to.

blackhat
you are not original
your girlfriends have this week started to try to pigeon hole me into a altcoiner group

however it is YOU and your girlfriends that adore alternative networks

and even now you are not thinking using your own words but scripts that your girlfriends have been saying

atleast try to think for yourself and stop thinking "i dont understand"

bitcoin has never been a censorship resistance network
its a consent network

the masses cant move value without the consent of the signer
the individuals couldnt(until the softening) change the rules without the consent of the masses


learn the difference between consensus vs censorship
then realise that core have gained too much centralised power
then the lead maintainers and devs that have recently been removed have admitted to the centralisation

core have a moderation policy in all development discussion area's and also in the github
even they dont believe in censorship resistance

i know you are upset that i ruin your subnetwork sales pitches, and upset that i ruin your dreams of breaking bitcoin just to offramp recruits to your subnetwork

but come back to reality and realise your subnetwork has too many flaws to be useful for the masses
then start to actually care more about bitcoin rather then the fanclub/idols you prefer to defend

you seem to care more about defending a group of people rather than the bitcoin protocol
you dont care if bitcoin gets ripped apart as long as the people you idolise can continue doing what they please even if it gets you personally into trouble

Yes, this is a very important point to highlight. Most people, until now, do not know the main purpose of establishing the Lightning Network and do not know its use either. The Lightning Network is mainly designed to receive small payments quickly, making it suitable for fast daily transactions, as it provides speed and low fees.

Other than that, the main Bitcoin network still exists and can be used to conduct large transactions where security is more important than speed and low fees.

Yeah exactly. The way LN is used is you would put let's say $4000 worth of bitcoin onto LN and use it for regular daily purchases ($5, $10, $40, $100, etc) and as well as to receive money regularly so your inbound/outbound liquidity stays balanced, or otherwise you have to do some sort of swap I guess where you send a service Bitcoin on-chain and they send you bitcoin on LN to give you outbound liquidity. But naturally the amount you hold on the LN would be much greater than the everyday purchases you make otherwise you would quickly run into liquidity problems. Just like you wouldn't put $30 in your bank account just to buy one thing that costs $30 with your debit card and then have to go to the bank to add more money every time you want to make a purchase.

This is very easy to understand. But franky doesn't even seem to get this simple obvious common sense usage of Lightning. He seems to think you put money on LN to use it all at once and then you have no outbound liquidity left, but for that case you would just make an on-chain payment, there would be no need to use Lightning for just a single payment. I can't tell if franky just really doesn't at all understand anything about Bitcoin and Lightning or if he's just a troll who plays stupid because he's like a BSV shill or something and so the only way he can hate on Bitcoin is to play very very dumb.

first of all you and those you speak with are the alternative network adorers who also do not want bitcoin to fix the flaws that devs that love alternative networks put into bitcoin

i am a bitcoin maximalist. but not a utopian dreamer im a realist. just because i dont pump out dreamy hype super positive ass kissery does not mean i am not a bitcoiner. it means people that found this forum already heard of bitcoin. they dont need the trick sales pitches. they want to find out real information for risk management and awareness

as for lightning. if you cant tell the difference and think an attack on lightning is a attack on bitcoin. you have alot to learn about why lightning is different to bitcoin

my argument is that before this week lightning lemmings and their echo chamber fanbase have been saying bitcoin tx scaling does not need to occur for X years because lightning promises to be the solution for mass adoption

they have not been saying(until recently) that lightning is just a niche for small payments users.
they have been saying all users should benefit due to lightning
thats the difference

lately the same lemming fanclub of echo chamber rhetoric is suddenly saying how lightning is just a niche service for small spenders and pretending that has always been their sales pitch. yet mentioning bitcoin tx scaling in another topic they still remain strong still shouting that bitcoin scaling should not occur and they like the idea of bitcoin becoming a meme bloat library thus processing less transactions per block because it helps promote lightning as the salvation for people to escape to, to avoid fees and delays

but forgetting to remember that there are some users that actually want to move more then $5-$100 at a time, thus know that lightning is unsuitable. thus bitcoin tx scaling is needed because ill emphasise this lightning is not suitable for mass adoption

also the more people that use lightning the less effective it is at moving value across routes
(please dont shy away with ignorance.. actually run some scenarios.. dont let anyone tell you not to try to find out things and just follow them blindly and just repeat what they say)

if your only remaining debate is that if i hate lightning it must mean i love another altcoin.. you really have ran out of silly arguments. and so now you have ran out.. use your free time to actually learn about bitcoin and lightning as separate networks. learn the differences and the risks.

It's name literally says it all, lightning. So far I only use ln one time and that is when I try a bitcoin lightning faucet. Transactions went smoothly as advertised. I think the reason why many of us have not use it regularly is due to lack of support.

If only LN is available on the gambling site that I am playing right now or on the shopping store that I use, I won't hesitate to use it than the other cryptos because they have delays and their transaction fees are sometimes high. I don't know if what is that trade-off or drawback you mean because I never experienced it before but don't worry because I know that it will still be fixed over time in order for ln to attract more users.