Bitcoin Forum

As we enter the next bull run the price of on-chain TX's will inevitably rise, firstly due to the price & secondly due to network congestion. Also there's quiet a few services that haven't implemented Segwit *cough* Binance.

In my opinion Lightning Network is nowhere near ready for global adoption, however it is a good conduit to free up the TX mempool. There's also a bunch of other off-chain/2nd layer solutions but let's be honest Lightning is currently leading the way.

Personally I've opened a bunch of lightning channels anticipating this fee rise, however it's still an uncertainty how it will all play out. Maybe channels become too expensive to open for the average person & custodial wallets become this next best thing?

Interested in the community's opinion on this.

Hub and spoke model first, before decentralizing.

I believe that custodial wallets, like BlueWallet for mobile, WILL become the main solution, if users want a fast, cheap, and a convenient way to use Lightning.

It's pretty safe to assume that a huge percentage of bitcoin being moved are just moving in and out of exchanges. I don't think lightning will help THAT significantly unless huge global exchanges themselves such as Binance actually implements Lightning.

Unfortunately, assuming an actual bull run occurs, if it's either this year or next year, I'm guessing that the mempool will once again be heavily congested.

I don't think so. Like MK4 said, the majority of txs are made on main chain in and out from exchanges. The problem with lightening network is that it doesn't support transactions with big amounts (i have tried blue wallet) and that it's not friendly use among new users and among experienced users ws well.
In the upcoming bull run, LN won't be the next revolution. It still need improvement and maintain.

If you are regularly making transactions to services that work with LN, then great, using it would indeed help you. But if not, you will have to specifically look for alternative services that work with LN, which might be impossible in many cases. So, LN adoption by services is the bottleneck here, and right now there is a reason to not adopt LN from their point of view - it's still considered to be in beta and the devs themselves are advising from using it with big amounts on mainnet. Until this changes, it would be hard for LN to have influence on fees.

How much does it cost to open up a Lightning Network Channel?  I've only ever used one before, and it was certainly amazing, but I just dont understand why this is taking so long to progress.  It's the same thing with SegWit, doesn't seem like it's progressed much.  I don't think it will have much to do with an  upcoming bull run, most people have no idea what it even is , let alone close to using it.

Lightning Network is yet to be mass used because very few people are familiar with it, nor it is widely accepted most of the renowned services. May be in next bull run, we will see the arise of LN because people will be looking for cheaper way to send/receive BTC.

it surprises me that people are still using these services ... happily!
it is not like SegWit were introduced a couple of weeks ago. no it has been 3 years already. that is a LONG time and at this point any service that still hasn't implemented SegWit is intentionally not doing it and it is our duty to find out WHY and stop using such services.

i agree but i am afraid that it may not be enough. in fact if LN gets popular we may even end up seeing a bigger number of on-chain transaction.

that would be the death of bitcoin in my opinion, because that is direct and complete centralization.

i don't think LN is going to be ready for the upcoming bull run because that is already starting while LN is far from being ready. maybe near the end by the time we are seeing the next bubble, we can see LN ready too.

No, I didn't say anythng about anything "revolutionary". I was merely talking about how Lightning could MAINLY be used, IF implemented by merchants/Bitcoin services. Ordinary users won't run a Bitcoin full node/Lightning node.

Rebelling against a top exchange like Binance is not that simple especially for something like Segwit etc.

I doubt it. The lightning network is only feasible when small payments are made by users who transact regularly which is why big payments will most likely always be a problem here.

Exchanges handle such big payments without any issues and I don't think this will change anytime soon.

When the bull run happens, the congestion inevitably happens because of newbies FOMOing and holders looking to sell at their target prices. What else in your opinion causes the congestion??

Its not like suddenly everyone starts using bitcoin to buy coffee. So it would be illogical to think that a bull run will inevitably have congestion. The congestion in 2017 was also due to the unique combination of an ATH and an ICO market with everyone looking to send in their payment first to get the most "tokens". Nothing of that sort exists today.

I don't think the LN will play any role once the bull market comes. Its reverse infact. The bull market may only come if LN starts playing an actual role. Why else would we witness a bull market when the usage is same?? Everyone is just so sure that history will repeat without the same kind of circumstances. MADNESS, I say.

If you think that LN is still far from being widely used, then the role of this protocol is almost non-existent in terms of influencing the next bull run. Let’s be honest, the average user still doesn’t know what SegWit is, not to mention the native vs. nested versions, and LN is even too complicated for slightly more experienced users.

What I see as the biggest problem in the next big bull run is that regardless of the protocols, exchanges probably won't be able to withstand the pressure on their infrastructure - so it won't matter if someone uses a Legacy address or an LN.

sure but how much trade do average users conduct on exchanges? The clients with the largest amount of trading activity will also be on the more sophisticated end of the scale when it comes to technical abilities, and regular traders are more incentivized to cut down marginal costs of business (represented here by the risk of keeping funds in exchange controlled accounts and trading/depositing fees)


All such friction can be done away with if a p2p trading platform implements Lightning. This would mean first solving the costless call options problem, which is inherent to the HLTC-based channels that power the lightning network. If that happens (maybe someone already has?), then a blazing fast p2p marketplace could enable near-instant inter-cryptocurrency trades settlement, putting centralized exchanges at a significant disadvantage when it comes to setting the price of cryptocurrencies (imagine a trustless version of the old shapeshift website if you don't understand what I mean).

Such a platform would then force the more questionable centralized/fiat exchanges to introduce Lightning deposits too. This would help to shift the volume of cryptocurrency trading completely away from the exchanges who comply with regulation regimes, and so I imagine they would eventually find some politically expedient way of following suit, or lose their influence (and thus importance) in the marketplace.

I don't see the final stage of these predictions taking place before the next bull run, but it's not even a sure thing that we will see a bull run when everyone is expecting it (indeed, it's perhaps more sensible to expect it when the general sentiment is against it)

If the major exchanges and services were to promote SegWit as a way to save transaction costs, more users would be coming on board. For this, the multiple exchanges and routing services benefiting from bitcoin should be doing more. Earlier, there used to be a lot of community driven advocacy of such issues on r/bitcoin, crypto-twitter etc. There was regular encouragement about adoption and on-boarding merchants. Does anybody else think that bitcoin is sort of losing ground here? Or maybe my twitter feed isn't tuned in..!

I have sent a PM to you regarding a trust issue. Have you seen it? It'd be nice to have a reply..Thanks..

That's ideal, but I'm not that optimistic for a high-liquidity p2p trading platform. I stand by the theory that we debated in the Lightning Network FAQ topic. Liquidity in Lightning would depend on users' capital, and capital is limited.

Somehow it does not seem that large exchanges are interested in any attempt to implement LN in the near future, because if I'm not mistaken, Binance has not yet enabled SegWit to its users. Can we conclude that LN is technically much more demanding than SegWit, and that this is the biggest obstacle when it comes to implementing such a service not only on crypto exchanges, but also with ordinary users?

I am fully aware that Bitcoin cannot thrive at least in terms of means of payment when it comes to fees and speed of confirmations, because even today many live in the belief that anything over $0.10 is too much, but they forget about the fees they pay to banks, and that some international transfers can take 5-7 days.

I hope that LN will be something completely normal in a period of 5 to 10 years from now.

I don't think the bull run is starting. Bitcoin's been fluctuating like this for a while, and if anything it's been quite stable lately if you look at 7-day price difference from time to time. However, the problem of transaction fees increasing is very real, even if it is postponed. While I don't know anything better than the LN, I don't think the LN will succeed in terms of global adoption because it is unappealing to at least two groups of people. It's not good for newbies because it's not easy to use. And as for those who have no difficulties with how to use the LN, there is a solid amount of people among these that would never use it for ideological reasons ('not Bitcoin', centralization).

It definitely most likely is. I really don't think that's the problem though. I'm personally not convinced that Binance doesn't have the manpower and it's definitely a lot more impossible that Binance doesn't have the funds, to pay for SegWit and Lightning implementation. It's mostly the chicken and the egg problem: Why implement lightning if no one is using it? But at the same time, why would people use lightning if they couldn't use it on what bitcoin is mostly used for- exchanges? It's a dilemma.

Lightning network main useful purpose is to buy and sell frequently, even, it is only good for low transactions amount like pay for coffee, paying in the cinema and buying from shopping mall etc. Because bitcoin transaction fee is high, it can not be used for these purpose and that is the main reason for lightning network, because you can use it at a very cheap transaction fee and at faster time. There are many lightning network wallets, it is commonly used in countries that make use of bitcoin daily for frequent transactions. So, seeing this from one side is not enough.

Because Lightning liquidity is only currently OK for small "coffee-transactions", not for traders sending $100,000 of Bitcoins to an exchange, who don't care about the $20.00 on-chain fee.

1. It's for sending funds in a fast manner in general. Not necessarily for buying and selling "frequently(?)".

2. Bitcoin transaction fees have been pretty low recently. It's not just as fast and cheap enough for the coffee transactions; but the fees definitely not high. You would know that if you'd at least used bitcoin at least once in the past months.

3. I'd like some data from you about people on whatever country that uses lightning in the daily.

I don't think that there is a direct correlation between the Bitcoin price going up and the transaction fees going up.Hypothetically,the blockchain might get stuck due to panic selling.The prices will go down,while the increased confirmation time and the fear of losing more value will force the people to choose higher fees and less confirmation time.
I also think that Lightning Network will be suitable only for businesses that require "instant" transactions
with no confirmation time.There are specific niches,where the on-chain transactions can't be used.
Comparing LN with the Bitcoin Core blockchain and thinking that they are actually competing with each other for customer transactions and fees is simply wrong.

The lightning network would help facilitate small transactions from point A to point B, but until it proves itself capable of carrying weight and huge values, it wouldn't matter much to the next bull run I'm afraid. Most transactions are just simple exchange - wallet and vice-versa, and I don't think exchanges will be adapting lightning any time soon. It would be additional tweaking and any other changes on the systems of exchanges, and might even open a vector for potential hacks IMO. Familiarity with how to use LN is still not there just yet. Only a handful of veterans and newbies actually know how to use it, and most people doesn't seem to even bother about its existence since on-chain transactions still work well.

Good point, those who have a lot of money do not look at large fees in the same way as small users, but it still seems to me that there are a lot more small users than such big players. After all, they just want to make a profit, and they don't really care about the practical application of BTC as a means of payment. But sooner or later there will have to be an adjustment by large exchanges, regardless of the fact that this may mean the loss of part of the income they generate from rather high fees.

I do think one should realize that the lightning network does hold a lot of risks . I do not think why whales and other Crypto enthusiasts will actually use the lightning network.
Main problem with the lightning network is :

 Security
The nodes are supposed to be online all the time which in turn makes them more vulnerable to attack and therefore I do think one should also think 10 times before exchanging big investments at the time of the bull run .

But at the same time there are wallets who are providing users with the opportunity to use the lightning network along with the normal one.

I do think it does need more development before it can be implemented correctly and used at such an important event.

The lightning network is very risky to use right now, it is still in the initial stages of development and need a lot of work to be completed.
So no one(a normal day to day) can currently use it now as the technical difficulties involved in it are pretty high and also a while back there was a user who lost huge amount of bitcoins while just trying the lightning network.
The upcoming bull run would need something bigger than just the lightning network for being successful, otherwise it would just be a short pump and then the price would eventually dump.

How "small" is small? I believe many of us plebs who have started "our Bitcoin journey" before 2017 would be HODLing more than an average of $10,000. That's not "small".

The lightning network is very risky to use right now, it is still in the initial stages of development and need a lot of work to be completed.
So no one(a normal day to day) can currently use it now as the technical difficulties involved in it are pretty high and also a while back there was a user who lost huge amount of bitcoins while just trying the lightning network.
The upcoming bull run would need something bigger than just the lightning network for being successful, otherwise it would just be a short pump and then the price would eventually dump.
[/quote]

I use it just about every day. There are several easy to deploy lightning in a box things that let you host your own node that you fund and connect to. And unless you do something stupid it's safe.
There are also a few wallets like bluewallet that let you fund them and use lightning while it's all handled by them on the back end.

Even when mucking about trying to get my node to respond on tor and totally screwing up the config I was still able to get my funds out with no problem.

-Dave

I see a lot of replies, Lightning Network is risky. Yes definitely riskier than Bitcoin on chain, but way safer than most alts IMO.

I think there are a lot of solutions making it much easier & safer. I'm using Casa's solution. I'm not technically minded and I'm running 2 nodes. I carry out transactions with them on a very regular basis. Yes I only have a small percentage of my Bitcoin sitting in channels, however I definitely find the Lightning Network (even at this point in time) very useful. I have my seed which restores all my channels & funds if the node's HDD becomes corrupt or faulty.

Personally I think Lightning will see a massive surge in adoption when on chain fees go up in the next bull run. I think it will been seen as saving grace and very necessary tech.

A lot of people are betting Ethereum could help scale Bitcoin...Ethereum could run into a lot of problems. Their devs are cowboys compared to Bitcoin (IMO).

My opinion is that lightning networks, has played good roles in the upcoming bull run. Who have big  money to invest money large scale instead of medium families. It's fact,l think so.lot of people want to wait & watch police adopted generally.

Agreed, Lightning is starting to gain traction now. I think it'll play a huge role in the upcoming bull run. Bitfinex just implemented Wumbo allowing their users to transact 2 BTC on Lightning. This is a step in the right direction, I'm expecting other exchanges to follow as it'll be a massive benefit to users when on-chain fees are high & the mempool is clogged.

I think Lightning Network just makes Bitcoin a little less congested. There is still another solution to reduce congestion on the Bitcoin network.
Miners have evolved, and it helps to process transactions faster than the old generation.
Wrapping Bitcoin on other blockchains will reduce the burden on the Bitcoin network.
Forms of OTC transactions already present on centralized exchanges seem to be more popular with people than older OTC buying and selling sites.
I don't think bitcoin will be congested in the coming bull run.

Agree with all of your comments.
It is clear that compared to 2017, bitcoin is now better known for its degree of saturation. They have been able to learn bitcoin from 2017 so far, and they bought Bitcoin when it was lower now.
The current demand for Bitcoin is saturated and there is no possibility of further growth. We expect only the entry of major institutions and corporations for Bitcoin.
They buy Bitcoin in bulk, not small, like most people in 2017. We have more ways to buy Bitcoin than transact directly in the Bitcoin network via Bitcoin and OTC on CEX. With the advancement of miners, the potential for network congestion is lower.

Lightning is a solution to speed up Bitcoin launched a few years ago.
Currently, the demand for Bitcoin is not the same as it used to be. People already know bitcoin, most of them buy Bitcoin for storage rather than for transactions.
I don't think Bitcoin will have a hard time in the next bull run. Because if they go up in price, people will sell Bitcoin through OTC channels or directly on CEX.

Lighting network isn't really adopted by most bitcoin related services companies, including trading websotes and places where there is high volume of transactions. What gives me some hope is that if for example there will be some contract between top exchanges and wallets like free or discounted instant transactions without actual transaction on blockchain (for example you can send btc for free from xapo to xapo and transaction is done inside without actually moving bitcoins). This will help us to decrease number of transactions. At the same time in some places lighting network is implemented... At least we are more prepared in this case if something similar may happen because past experience was terrible and that was one of the reason of creating BCH and etc.