Why isn't the Lightning Network being implemented in the Bitcoin protocol?

[yusufjalal]

I'm fairly new to this discussion board so please pardon me if my question seems to be quite trivial.

I was wondering why the lightning network hasn't been launched yet?

I understand the SegWit needs to be activated first and miners are essentially centralizing their power for their own interests but for the whole Bitcoin ecosystem, the LN speeds up confirmation times, enables the transfer of really small values and streamlines the process of transferring BTC within the Bitcoin network.

Although there are drawbacks to this extension, I think that the pros outweigh the cons and it should be launched as soon as possible. The politics behind this debate does not contribute anything to the ecosystem and something needs to be done in order for Bitcoin to be a sustainable method of payment in the future.

So can anyone help me understand what's stopping this from happening? In my opinion, I think this is the future of the Bitcoin network and it would be a shame if consensus cannot be reached regarding this topic.

Please discuss.

[kiklo]

I'm fairly new to this discussion board so please pardon me if my question seems to be quite trivial.

I was wondering why the lightning network hasn't been launched yet?

I understand the SegWit needs to be activated first and miners are essentially centralizing their power for their own interests but for the whole Bitcoin ecosystem, the LN speeds up confirmation times, enables the transfer of really small values and streamlines the process of transferring BTC within the Bitcoin network.

Although there are drawbacks to this extension, I think that the pros outweigh the cons and it should be launched as soon as possible. The politics behind this debate does not contribute anything to the ecosystem and something needs to be done in order for Bitcoin to be a sustainable method of payment in the future.

So can anyone help me understand what's stopping this from happening? In my opinion, I think this is the future of the Bitcoin network and it would be a shame if consensus cannot be reached regarding this topic.

Please discuss.

Miners are stopping it, because it will decrease their transaction fees earnings and allow LN to monopolize the transactions fee completely off chain and bankrupt the miners, who depend on ONCHAIN transaction fees. Currently ~$1000 per block.

We already went over this stuff in the forums.

Segwit allow cross blockchain atomic swaps, so trading without trusting your coins to exchange possible.  SegWit allow off chain transactions, so private transactions without coinmixers possible. SegWit allow instant transactions and allow more transactions per second. No matter how good or bad today implementation is, SegWit is a step in the right way. Network should progress,  anonymity matters, big tps and instant transactions is a must. Once litecoin adopts segwit all shitcoins become obsolete, so no wonder miners trying to derail voting and spread FUD here and there.

You are confusing Segwit with LN, 

Segwit only allows the TIME LOCKING of BTC onchain.

LN does a counterfeit offchain transactions, because if those time locks fail, you are trading fake coins. 
Which you only learn it is fake, if you try cashing out on the TRUE ONLINE CHAIN.


 

Well, SegWit allow Lightning Networks. Without SegWit LN probably will not happen. And what does it mean IF those time locks fail? Why should time locks fail, because of what? If you think there can be problem with it - please show it on test network.
If bitcoin splits on two hundred altcoins, if artificial intelligence robots attack us, if government builds quantum supercomputer to hack dogecoin there definitely will be some problems with cashing out too. That's very unlikely, though.

Test Net is unnecessary just read the LN whitepaper.
Here is the Short version.

So what secures the LN network then?

Description : From Bitcoin Wiki. 
Lightning Network is a proposed implementation of Hashed Timelock Contracts (HTLCs) with bi-directional payment channels which allows payments to be securely routed across multiple peer-to-peer payment channels.Dec 22, 2016

Segwit supporters say :
It relies on the underlying blockchain, be it Bitcoin’s or otherwise, for its security.
In the case of Bitcoin, it uses the underlying proof-of-work algorithm that secures the entire network to secure

But I will tell you the truth, LN Security Relies only on : proposed implementation of Hashed Timelock Contracts (HTLCs)
Time Locks are what you are relying on for Security in LN.

Examples: When the Time Locks expire your BTC can be stolen

My fear with LN is rather the opposite: that propagating "waves of panic" will overwhelm the block chain with transactions, because the amount of transactions pending on the LN network can in principle be orders of magnitude larger than what a block chain can handle (that's its main idea !).  So if a block chain can handle, say, 100 000 transactions per hour, and the LN network has 10 million transactions pending in 10 minutes, and there's a panic wave going through the network, those 10 million transactions will need to go on-chain which will create a backlog of 100 hours, often passing the safety time limit of regularisation, and huge opportunities to scam.

Your fears are confirmed , article from  Jul 5, 201612:28 PM EST by Kyle Torpey
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/here-s-how-bitcoin-s-lightning-network-could-fail-1467736127/

And also what would happen in this scenario if the locks on the main chain expire before the tx from LN can be pushed back to the main chain, it would be a bit like double spending issue no ?

@IadixDev,
Nice,  you see the problems with LN also. 


How to Steal LN Funds from the LN WhitePaper itself.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 49 thru 51 

Improper Timelocks
Participants must choose timelocks with sucient amounts of time.  If insuf-
 cient time is given, it is possible that timelocked transactions believed to
be invalid will become valid, enabling coin theft by the counterparty.  There
is a trade-o  between longer timelocks and the time-value of money.  When
writing wallet and Lightning Network application software, it is necessary
to ensure that sucient time is given and users are able to have their trans-
actions enter into the blockchain when interacting with non-cooperative or
malicious channel counterparties

9.2    Forced Expiration Spam
Forced expiration of many transactions may be the greatest systemic risk
when using the Lightning Network.  If a malicious participant creates many
channels and forces them all to expire at once, these may overwhelm block
data capacity, forcing expiration and broadcast to the blockchain.  The re-
sult  would  be  mass  spam  on  the  bitcoin  network.   The  spam  may  delay
transactions to the point where other locktimed transactions become valid

9.3    Coin Theft via Cracking
As parties must be online and using private keys to sign, there is a possibility
that, if the computer where the private keys are stored is compromised, coins
will  be  stolen  by  the  attacker.   While  there  may  be  methods  to  mitigate
the threat for the sender and the receiver, the intermediary nodes must be
online and will likely be processing the transaction automatically. For this
reason,  the  intermediary  nodes  will  be  at  risk  and  should  not  be  holding
a  substantial  amount  of  money  in  this  \hot  wallet."   Intermediary  nodes
which have better security will likely be able to out-compete others in the
long run  and  be able to  conduct greater transaction volume due to  lower
fees.  Historically, one of the largest component of fees and interest in the
 nancial system are from various forms of counterparty risk { in Bitcoin it
is possible that the largest component in fees will be derived from security
risk premiums.
A Funding Transaction may have multiple outputs with multiple Com-
mitment Transactions, with the Funding Transaction key and some Commit-
ment Transactions keys stored oine.  It is possible to create an equivalent
of a \Checking Account" and \Savings Account" by moving funds between
outputs  from  a  Funding  Transaction,  with  the  \Savings  Account"  stored
oine and requiring additional signatures from security services.

 

[franky1]

a version of LN can run now

but.
blockstreams version wants to use a new address style never used before, that starts
BC1
rather than use normal multisig that starts
3

this is all about making LN possible to easily swap coins from different chains in an LN channel between different coins


its got nothing to do with miners holding things up
its all about the new keypairs that are still being developed which wont be available until a later date and only acceptable to the network once blockstream have added new backdoors to slide in changes that nodes wont object to instantly

blockstream have sooo much invested in doing things only one way or no way at all that they are the ones holding it up

tl:dr;
LN can function today using native keypairs but blockstream want to do things differently, thus everyones ending up waiting on blockstream

[Foxpup]

I was wondering why the lightning network hasn't been launched yet?

It has. SegWit is active on testnet, and several Lightning implementations are currently being tested on it. I expect Lightning will be stable by the time SegWit activates on mainnet.

[gentlemand]

So can anyone help me understand what's stopping this from happening? In my opinion, I think this is the future of the Bitcoin network and it would be a shame if consensus cannot be reached regarding this topic.

Well, that's the hottest issue of the last few years. It's miners who are the ones who can activate it.

Some miners can't be bothered to signal for any change. Some miners are signalling for Segwit. Others are actively trying to block it.

Some say that's because Segwit would remove an advantage they have to save power and increase profitability. Others think it's because they don't want a centralised development team to lord over Bitcoin forever. Others think it's a pure power grab so they can turn it into something even more centralised.

One thing I am sure of is that it's getting old.

[jonald_fyookball]

Second-tier networks such as Lightning Network (which relies on SegWit) cannot be considered as a block scaling solution. LN transactions are NOT equal to Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer on-chain transactions and most Bitcoin use scenarios are not applicable with Lightning Network. LN will also lead to big payment “centers”, and this is against Bitcoin’s initial design as a peer-to-peer payment system. It can be a good method though for frequent and small Bitcoin transactions in certain cases. But we cannot rely on it as a cure for Bitcoin scaling.

source: https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-dont-support-segwit-91d44475cc18

[pereira4]

Second-tier networks such as Lightning Network (which relies on SegWit) cannot be considered as a block scaling solution. LN transactions are NOT equal to Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer on-chain transactions and most Bitcoin use scenarios are not applicable with Lightning Network. LN will also lead to big payment “centers”, and this is against Bitcoin’s initial design as a peer-to-peer payment system. It can be a good method though for frequent and small Bitcoin transactions in certain cases. But we cannot rely on it as a cure for Bitcoin scaling.

source: https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-dont-support-segwit-91d44475cc18

"ViaBTC" aren't competent enough to have a solid opinion on the lightning network. They are just miners, they don't have the brains and experience on the field.

Let's look at a reputable expert opinion with decades of experience on this very particular field:

http://bitcoinist.com/nick-szabo-bitcoin-censorship-resistance/

Now, do you trust ViaBTC and franky1, or Nick Szabo? Choose wisely.

PS: No, normal people outsource this stuff to expert and don't pretend to "read code" and figure it out themselves. All experts agree on segwit being the best solution, there's no conspiracy theory, don't be a child.

[jonald_fyookball]

Second-tier networks such as Lightning Network (which relies on SegWit) cannot be considered as a block scaling solution. LN transactions are NOT equal to Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer on-chain transactions and most Bitcoin use scenarios are not applicable with Lightning Network. LN will also lead to big payment “centers”, and this is against Bitcoin’s initial design as a peer-to-peer payment system. It can be a good method though for frequent and small Bitcoin transactions in certain cases. But we cannot rely on it as a cure for Bitcoin scaling.

source: https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-dont-support-segwit-91d44475cc18

"ViaBTC" aren't competent enough to have a solid opinion on the lightning network. They are just miners, they don't have the brains and experience on the field.

Let's look at a reputable expert opinion with decades of experience on this very particular field:

http://bitcoinist.com/nick-szabo-bitcoin-censorship-resistance/

Now, do you trust ViaBTC and franky1, or Nick Szabo? Choose wisely.

PS: No, normal people outsource this stuff to expert and don't pretend to "read code" and figure it out themselves. All experts agree on segwit being the best solution, there's no conspiracy theory, don't be a child.

I have a background in computer science and I'm able to understand the issues.

Nick Szabo is smart obviously and has a long history of digital currency involved but I find he is becoming politicized in this debate.  For example

Bitcoin blockchain itself cannot possibly come anywhere near Visa transaction-per-second numbers and maintain the automated integrity that creates its distinctive advantages versus these traditional financial systems.

These 'distinctive advantages' are subjective.  You have to ask questions like:

 - How big of a node cost is too big?
 - Is Szabo really addressing the topology of the LN and real life use cases for p2p cash? (If so where, I haven't seen it)
 - Why isn't Szabo addressing the elephants in the room like 1mb is ridiculously small and can be raised and raising is required for LN anyway?

But to address a bigger issue, its a bad thing to start believing that Bitcoin is so hard to understand than only
a few select individuals should be making decisions.  That kind of centralization decision making is antithetical
to Bitcoin.

We all have different levels of understanding and all of us are relying on others to some degree.

- Some know nothing about how Bitcoin works but see enough evidence in the world to trust it.
- Some understand only the basic idea of a distributed ledger secured by incentived nodes
- Some understand many of the Bitcoin components like assymetric cryptography, hash functions, merkle trees, etc
- Some understand the broader concepts like distributed consensus, hard forks, soft forks, orphans, etc
- Some understand related details like coinbase transactions, issuance, etc
- Some understand mining, pools, network hashrate, difficulty adjustments, etc
- Some understand finer details like sigops, UTXO pruning, etc
- Some understand opensource software development, code library management, pull requests, etc
- Some have a deep understanding of the codebase itself through working on it
- Some have expertise in cryptography
etc

We all rely on others, but nothing is beyond understanding, and the more you know, the more
you understand who can make intelligent points about a certain level of Bitcoin.  You do not
have to be a core developer to question the blocksize.

To say that a major mining pool doesn't know enough about Segwit to make the arguments
it does, tells me that you probably don't know enough about the various layers of knowledge
that are at play here.  



 

[Kprawn]

To give you a simple answer...

1. Miners make too much money from high fees during spam attacks to accept a solution to the scaling problem.
2. Developers from both sides { SegWit vs BU } wants control over Bitcoin.
3. The LN will be more complex and would be a lot more effort for miners to maintain. { Running a few Asic's takes little effort }

So it's all about MONEY & POWER and who has the biggest balls.  

[Nagadota]

To give you a simple answer...

1. Miners make too much money from high fees during spam attacks to accept a solution to the scaling problem.
2. Developers from both sides { SegWit vs BU } wants control over Bitcoin.
3. The LN will be more complex and would be a lot more effort for miners to maintain. { Running a few Asic's takes little effort }

So it's all about MONEY & POWER and who has the biggest balls.  

What people are missing though is that the Lightning Network is in very early stages.  As well as being a problem for miners who rely on onchain transactions, the Lightning Network could well have major bugs or problems that still need working out.  It's going to be a long time before the Lightning Network will actually be ready and be implemented.

[franky1]

What people are missing though is that the Lightning Network is in very early stages.  As well as being a problem for miners who rely on onchain transactions, the Lightning Network could well have major bugs or problems that still need working out.  It's going to be a long time before the Lightning Network will actually be ready and be implemented.

multisigs have been around years and doing 'bidirectional offchain payments' have been done for just as long..

but to translate Nagadota
blockstreams version of 'bidirectional offchain payments' (LN) is not ready and buggy and wont be ready because it relies on half baked segwit, and keypairs that are not even ready yet

we should not force half baked segwit in just for hopes of the half baked features. and then hope that forcing it in speeds up LN. and definetly not continue pushing it all the way to 2019 if there is still doubt in november 2017..

instead we need to push to get the puppet masters blockstream to do a plan B of a proper community uniting release that does more then halfbaked segwit. (1merkle segwitkeys, plus LN keys, plus dynamic blocks, plus low under 4k maxtxsigops, etc).. and have that as the active by 2019 backup plan.

[The One]

I'm fairly new to this discussion board so please pardon me if my question seems to be quite trivial.

I was wondering why the lightning network hasn't been launched yet?

I understand the SegWit needs to be activated first and miners are essentially centralizing their power for their own interests but for the whole Bitcoin ecosystem, the LN speeds up confirmation times, enables the transfer of really small values and streamlines the process of transferring BTC within the Bitcoin network.

Although there are drawbacks to this extension, I think that the pros outweigh the cons and it should be launched as soon as possible. The politics behind this debate does not contribute anything to the ecosystem and something needs to be done in order for Bitcoin to be a sustainable method of payment in the future.

So can anyone help me understand what's stopping this from happening? In my opinion, I think this is the future of the Bitcoin network and it would be a shame if consensus cannot be reached regarding this topic.

Please discuss.

Too many people are thinking "Lightning Network" is great. How many truly understand it?
Firstly, Bitcoin depends on miners to secure the blockchain, etc. Miners POW rewards will go down over the next 20 years and by then fees will replace the reduced mining rewards. If fees are going to LN "hubs" pockets then who is going to secure Bitcoin itself?
Which begs a question. Why "hubs" and not Full Nodes - users also securing the BTC network but not mining?

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm fairly new to this discussion board so please pardon me if my question seems to be quite trivial.

I was wondering why the lightning network hasn't been launched yet?

I understand the SegWit needs to be activated first and miners are essentially centralizing their power for their own interests but for the whole Bitcoin ecosystem, the LN speeds up confirmation times, enables the transfer of really small values and streamlines the process of transferring BTC within the Bitcoin network.

Although there are drawbacks to this extension, I think that the pros outweigh the cons and it should be launched as soon as possible. The politics behind this debate does not contribute anything to the ecosystem and something needs to be done in order for Bitcoin to be a sustainable method of payment in the future.

So can anyone help me understand what's stopping this from happening? In my opinion, I think this is the future of the Bitcoin network and it would be a shame if consensus cannot be reached regarding this topic.

Please discuss.

Too many people are thinking "Lightning Network" is great. How many truly understand it?
Firstly, Bitcoin depends on miners to secure the blockchain, etc. Miners POW rewards will go down over the next 20 years and by then fees will replace the reduced mining rewards. If fees are going to LN "hubs" pockets then who is going to secure Bitcoin itself?
Which begs a question. Why "hubs" and not Full Nodes - users also securing the BTC network but not mining?

Great point.

LN hubs and nodes are on their respective layers of the network.   

The fact that we seem to need these 'hubs' should tell people that LN may not be as great as they think it is, because they are a from of centralization and move us farther away from p2p cash.

[SONG GEET]

The only reason behind this is huge debate between bitcoin users and miners.
With LN miners will loss so much of their revenue from fees.
With LN normal bitcoin users can have faster transactions with very low fee.

why all this miners will support LN if they gonna loss their revenue 

[franky1]

Great point.

LN hubs and nodes are on their respective layers of the network.   

The fact that we seem to need these 'hubs' should tell people that LN may not be as great as they think it is, because they are a from of centralization and move us farther away from p2p cash.

in short LN = PERMISSIONED tx's.. (it needs other parties signature of agreement)
in short LN = reinventing chargeback risks(CSV) and 3-5 business day funds unavailable(CLTV)
in short LN = only good for small spending $60ish with 2week lockin-ish

thus dont think of it as the end solution to scaling. think of it like a side service like Xapo

[franky1]

The only reason behind this is huge debate between bitcoin users and miners.
With LN miners will loss so much of their revenue from fees.
With LN normal bitcoin users can have faster transactions with very low fee.

why all this miners will support LN if they gonna loss their revenue  

pools DO NOT CARE about LN

the tx fee's are not needed income. its just a bonus and will remain a bonus for decades. so pools dont care right now and no reason to push for $1 onchain tx last or this or next year..

its blockstream that have done all the code changes that result in highr fee's not the pools.
blockstream devs (most fee based code changes done by gmax himself) all because he wants rusty russels LN to be the money earner hub to repay blockstream debts

pools would prefer
2200 tx last year with $0.10 per tx = $220 bonus
4400 tx this year with $0.10 per tx = $440 bonus
xxx00 tx in near future year with $0.10 per tx = $1x00 bonus
xxx00 tx in near further year with $0.10 per tx = $2x00 bonus
xxx00 tx in near later year with $0.10 per tx = $4x00 bonus

that way utility remains and eventually in 20-120 years when the income:bonus(reward:fee) flip to income:bonus(fee:reward) bitcoin remains popular, usable and not expensive for users.

yes LN as a side service will be ok for those spending more than once a day..
.. but onchain for people that may only transact once a week or month without having to pay $1 each time

[gentlemand]

The only reason behind this is huge debate between bitcoin users and miners.
With LN miners will loss so much of their revenue from fees.
With LN normal bitcoin users can have faster transactions with very low fee.

why all this miners will support LN if they gonna loss their revenue  

LN transactions seem to be limited to 0.042 BTC for now. All of my recent transactions have been bigger than that because that's how I roll.

And to start doing LN transactions you have to kick off with an on chain TX plus another to get off. The possible demand for on chain stuff might be bonkers. I really can't see any scenario where miners lose out, especially if block sizes remain modest.

But I'd want to see a properly working iteration before deciding it was a certifiable wonder. It might be a load of noodly bollocks beyond the testnets. I especially dunno how the hub thing will play out.

[The One]

The only reason behind this is huge debate between bitcoin users and miners.
With LN miners will loss so much of their revenue from fees.
With LN normal bitcoin users can have faster transactions with very low fee.

why all this miners will support LN if they gonna loss their revenue 

Not all miners support LN. Hence the stalemate. If miners loses fees in the future then who is going to secure the network? For free? or little fees?
We can have low fees and scalability using Full Nodes. I can not see any problems.
Thus two sets of fee per transaction. Minimum 1000 sat (roughly 1 cent) to Full Nodes and normal fee to miners. Both need to be fixed and not all this stupid replace-by-fee, trying to calculate how much to pay, queue jumping, idiotic "free market" by developers expecting users to compete, etc.

[franky1]

The only reason behind this is huge debate between bitcoin users and miners.
With LN miners will loss so much of their revenue from fees.
With LN normal bitcoin users can have faster transactions with very low fee.

why all this miners will support LN if they gonna loss their revenue  

Not all miners support LN. Hence the stalemate. If miners loses fees in the future then who is going to secure the network? For free? or little fees?
We can have low fees and scalability using Full Nodes. I can not see any problems.
Thus two sets of fee per transaction. Minimum 1000 sat (roughly 1 cent) to Full Nodes and normal fee to miners. Both need to be fixed and not all this stupid replace-by-fee, trying to calculate how much to pay, queue jumping, idiotic "free market" by developers expecting users to compete, etc.

1. pools are not pushing the fee's up. blockstreams fee mechanisms coding is and the issue of block size is. so dont make it a drama about pools
2. at the moment think of it as the same as xapo, changetip, coinbase where people trade offchain daily anyway. LN is no different.
yep for emphasis
LN does no more harm to pools future bonus/income as what xapo is and has been doing for years. so relax

now with that said as long as LN stays as a voluntary side service for the niche users like faucet raiders and day traders. and we also get onchain scaling too then there can be a symbiotic relationship of under 10cent tx's onchain that grow in user capacity naturally over years so that fees remain low per users, but add up and combine to cover long term pool costs.. and off chain sub penny voluntary side services for the high yield multispenders to take the pressure off of onchain utility. thus everyone gets the best of both.

the only concern this year is to get onchain scaling made dynamically so that we can organically/naturally grow onchain scaling to user defined limits that nodes can cope with to reduce the pressure of onchain fee's ruining bitcoin utility/desire. WITHOUT needing to endlessly/repeatedly appeal to dev-kings to spoonfeed setting and debate for years.

segwit does not fix these things. segwits features are only temporary gestures that skirt around the utopian promises. and after a few years people will look back and laugh at all the 2 merkle segwit drama of wasted time, once people wake up to reality.

REAL onchain scaling is whats really needed now and then LN is. and the whole drama of what pools need in 20-120 years will look after itself as the years pass.

pools are not voting against LN. they are voting against/abstaining from voting for/against segwits 2 merkle tier netwok of control and cesspit. for multiple reasons.

[The One]

The only reason behind this is huge debate between bitcoin users and miners.
With LN miners will loss so much of their revenue from fees.
With LN normal bitcoin users can have faster transactions with very low fee.

why all this miners will support LN if they gonna loss their revenue  

Not all miners support LN. Hence the stalemate. If miners loses fees in the future then who is going to secure the network? For free? or little fees?
We can have low fees and scalability using Full Nodes. I can not see any problems.
Thus two sets of fee per transaction. Minimum 1000 sat (roughly 1 cent) to Full Nodes and normal fee to miners. Both need to be fixed and not all this stupid replace-by-fee, trying to calculate how much to pay, queue jumping, idiotic "free market" by developers expecting users to compete, etc.

1. pools are not pushing the fee's up. blockstreams fee mechanisms coding is and the issue of block size is. so dont make it a drama about pools
2. at the moment think of it as the same as xapo, changetip, coinbase where people trade offchain daily anyway. LN is no different.
yep for emphasis
LN does no more harm to pools future bonus/income as what xapo is and has been doing for years. so relax

now with that said as long as LN stays as a voluntary side service for the niche users like faucet raiders and day traders. and we also get onchain scaling too then there can be a symbiotic relationship of under 10cent tx's onchain that grow in user capacity naturally over years so that fees remain low per users, but add up and combine to cover long term pool costs.. and off chain sub penny voluntary side services for the high yield multispenders to take the pressure off of onchain utility. thus everyone gets the best of both.

the only concern this year is to get onchain scaling made dynamically so that we can organically/naturally grow onchain scaling to user defined limits that nodes can cope with to reduce the pressure of onchain fee's ruining bitcoin utility/desire. WITHOUT needing to endlessly/repeatedly appeal to dev-kings to spoonfeed setting and debate for years.

segwit does not fix these things. segwits features are only temporary gestures that skirt around the utopian promises. and after a few years people will look back and laugh at all the 2 merkle segwit drama of wasted time, once people wake up to reality.

REAL onchain scaling is whats really needed now and then LN is. and the whole drama of what pools need in 20-120 years will look after itself as the years pass.

pools are not voting against LN. they are voting against/abstaining from voting for/against segwits 2 merkle tier netwok of control and cesspit. for multiple reasons.

Never mentioned pools...