What is The Lightning Network ?

[OmegaStarScream]

So I was reading this : https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/
I want to understand what is this Lightning network exactly ? is it making transaction even faster ? If it's the case then when we are supposed to see it ?

[1715081747]

1715081747

[1715081747]

1715081747

[1715081747]

1715081747

[Lauda]

Well, I don't think that the definition of LN (e.g. LN is X) has been used widely and even if you try searching for it you might fail to find one. The Lightning Network is supposed to represent complex, bi-directional payment channels. The idea behind it is that e.g. Alice and Bob open up a payment channel between them and lock X amount of funds (this process currently takes ~30 minutes, i.e. 3 confirmations) in it. What makes Lightning so 'special' here (in the terms of scalability) is that it enables a theoretically infinite amount of transactions between Alice and Bob without bloating the blockchain (imagine 1 million transactions between two partners, and only a single TX to settle on the main chain). Transacting within the LN is both instant and trust.less. It might even improve privacy at some point as there are potential unknown use cases.

If it's the case then when we are supposed to see it ?

IIRC someone said that a working implementation should be available soon (I assume beta).

[OmegaStarScream]

Well, I don't think that the definition of LN (e.g. LN is X) has been used widely and even if you try searching for it you might fail to find one. The Lightning Network is supposed to represent complex, bi-directional payment channels. The idea behind it is that e.g. Alice and Bob open up a payment channel between them and lock X amount of funds (this process currently takes ~30 minutes, i.e. 3 confirmations) in it. What makes Lightning so 'special' here (in the terms of scalability) is that it enables a theoretically infinite amount of transactions between Alice and Bob without bloating the blockchain (imagine 1 million transactions between two partners, and only a single TX to settle on the main chain). Transacting within the LN is both instant and trust.less. It might even improve privacy at some point as there are potential unknown use cases.

If it's the case then when we are supposed to see it ?

IIRC someone said that a working implementation should be available soon (I assume beta).

I see , It sounds nice honestly but taht doesn't mean that the size of the blockchain won't increase right ? even if there is different transaction in one TX blockchain size should increase ?
so we should see this updates with SegWit , means Bitcoin Core 0.12.2 ?

[Divinespark]

The lightning network will allow the network to scale by allowing the vast majority of transactions to happen off the blockchain
it's a secure micropayment channel

[Amph]

transaction should also be instant by the look of it, it should not be much different than having an off chain transaction, like with bitpay

from what i've understand they seem big centralized(or more centralized) node, that can rely almost infinite transaction instantly

there are some weakness that were pointed out on reddit, i need to check it again

The lightning network will allow the network to scale by allowing the vast majority of transactions to happen off the blockchain
it's a secure micropayment channel

network can scale with optimizations also, LN is not the only solution out there

[Lauda]

I see , It sounds nice honestly but taht doesn't mean that the size of the blockchain won't increase right ?

It does not mean that indeed. However, technically you don't need to increase it (yet) as LN at 1 MB can accommodate a lot of users.

even if there is different transaction in one TX blockchain size should increase ?

What does this mean?

so we should see this updates with SegWit , means Bitcoin Core 0.12.2 ?

Segwit should come within 0.12.X (either 2 or three). I have no idea how they are going to finalize LN at the moment. There are multiple implementations and the advanced ones will come to some sort of agreement on the exact parameters.
P.S. Ignore the two posters under your post (pointless posts due to signature).

[Cuidler]

The lightning network will allow the network to scale by allowing the vast majority of transactions to happen off the blockchain
it's a secure micropayment channel

Lightning network might help scale Bitcoin, but not by much in my opinion. The problem is it scales based on the two factors

1) how long your willing to lock your Bitcoins (the longer the better potential scaling, but the concept of depositing equivalent of several thousand $ to be able to spend anytime at let say starbuck for the next half year is so out of normal people behaviour who dont have big wealth reserves and just living from day to day with their expences)

2) the number of people willing to use such pre deposit and lock Bitcoins for longer period method

[OmegaStarScream]

I see , It sounds nice honestly but taht doesn't mean that the size of the blockchain won't increase right ?

It does not mean that indeed. However, technically you don't need to increase it (yet) as LN at 1 MB can accommodate a lot of users.

even if there is different transaction in one TX blockchain size should increase ?

What does this mean?

so we should see this updates with SegWit , means Bitcoin Core 0.12.2 ?

Segwit should come within 0.12.X (either 2 or three). I have no idea how they are going to finalize LN at the moment. There are multiple implementations and the advanced ones will come to some sort of agreement on the exact parameters.
P.S. Ignore the two posters under your post (pointless posts due to signature).

What I meant is , the blockchain (the 45gb file or whatever the current size) will have his size increased just like now ?
having multiple transactions in one TX won't change that ?
(I'm not speaking about the size of the block) which I suppose should be increased to 2mb next year if there is enough community support (no one knows how this is calculated anyway)

[CIYAM]

The LN txs (apart from the channel opening and closing) are "off-chain" so they are not contributing to any size cost whatsoever.

It should also be noted that payment "routing" is also a key feature of the LN design (so you wouldn't need a separate channel for every possible service and/or goods provider you are paying).

Another important thing is that LN allows Bitcoin to become suitable for things like paying for "live streaming" (e.g. pay an amount per second) which is something Bitcoin itself could never scale up to do.

[Lauda]

Lightning network might help scale Bitcoin, but not by much in my opinion. The problem is it scales based on the two factors

1) how long your willing to lock your Bitcoins (the longer the better potential scaling, but the concept of depositing equivalent of several thousand $ to be able to spend anytime at let say starbuck for the next half year is so out of normal people behaviour who dont have big wealth reserves and just living from day to day with their expences)

2) the number of people willing to use such pre deposit and lock Bitcoins for longer period method

This doesn't necessarily have to be true. If Alice opens a channel with a Coffee Shop, that does not mean that Alice won't be able to pay anyone outside of it (hubs, wallet routing?). There isn't much different to keeping your coins within LN than keeping them in your wallet (if the infrastructure is there). Read (example of wallet routing, not hubs):

Again, the exact features have yet to be fully decided and implemented.

What I meant is , the blockchain (the 45gb file or whatever the current size) will have his size increased just like now ?

It will continue to increase at a similar pace as it is doing now.

having multiple transactions in one TX won't change that ?

What multiple transactions? You only need 1 TX to settle.
Update: Several corrections.

[akosimakulit]

Lightning Network is it was proposed in the context of bitcoin but actually it also applies to sidechains which are an extension mechanism for bitcoins.

[Cuidler]

It should also be noted that payment "routing" is also a key feature of the LN design (so you wouldn't need a separate channel for every possible service and/or goods provider you are paying).

Thats the biggest issue because the "routing" is very centralized. Basically everyone lock their Bitcoins to one LN provider who has all the chanels open for every possible service and/or goods providers. If this turn out to be the case in the end (one dominant player where you have to lock your Bitcoins to use everywhere), I wont be using such highly centralized system at all...

Again, the exact features have yet to be fully decided and implemented.

If the decentralized routing can ever exist and is implemented then all fine. But unless I see working solution, I dont give it much faith its even possible.

[CIYAM]

Thats the biggest issue because the "routing" is very centralized.

That will depend upon exactly how the design comes together (it isn't completed yet AFAIA).

Of course the more decentralised such routing is the better off we are in terms of having an anti-fragile network but also decentralisation does come at a performance cost (which is why off-chain solutions are required in order to boost the TPS to the same sorts of levels that networks such as VISA and Mastercard currently provide).

My prediction is that we'll probably end up with a somewhat centralised approach and I do agree that getting the balance right is going to be important.

[Lauda]

I wont be using such highly centralized system at all...

Nobody is forcing you to use it either. You are still free to transact solely on the main chain.

If the decentralized routing can ever exist and is implemented then all fine. But unless I see working solution, I dont give it much faith its even possible.

So (mostly) baseless doubting and skepticism is your approach here? LN is among the best proposals that we've seen so far. Unless someone comes up with something better, we are going in that direction. The question is not whether it is possible, the question is how and when (just talk to the developers and/or track the Github pages for more insight). Besides, without something of this kind you can forget about 'mainstream Bitcoin'.

My prediction is that we'll probably end up with a somewhat centralised approach and I do agree that getting the balance right is going to be important.

Decentralized routing is much harder than it sounds. We shall see what will happen.

[Carlton Banks]

To me, Lightning is just using the mempool (transactions that haven't cleared yet) as a scratchpad to assemble the most space efficient configuration for transactions before they hit the main chain. Users normally take that upon themselves, Lightning just does it for you in a way that would be too impractical for most users. That's kind of smart, because every tx output that goes through Lightning already has "blockchain" integrity, so all the verification those outputs are subject to is equivalent to a regular Bitcoin transaction after it's relayed as valid (but before it gets mined into a block).

For me, "off-chain" is a bad description, it emphasises a potential derogatory aspect; "mempool-verified" or "network verified" are both better tags for what Lightning does IMO.

[Lauda]

For me, "off-chain" is a bad description, it emphasises a potential derogatory aspect; "mempool-verified" or "network verified" are both better tags for what Lightning does IMO.

There are many misrepresentations of LN, not to mention all the FUD that 'certain members' have spread in regards to it. There are even people who call it an altcoin which obviously does not make sense in any case.

[ebliever]

See: http://lightning.network/

[vincentvincent]

I read this page that was quite helpfull: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-lightning-network-elidhdicacs

[calkob]

Great question to be honest i am not sure my self but i think it has something to do with require lwss information in the chain , something like that.

[OmegaStarScream]

Great question to be honest i am not sure my self but i think it has something to do with require lwss information in the chain , something like that.

I'm not sure if you are spamming or you simply didn't see the answers but Lauda explained pretty much everything about it : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454243.msg14700597#msg14700597

@Everyone , thank you for your answers. I will keep this topic open for further discussions