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

[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

Never mentioned pools...

i count three mentions.. we are no longer in 2009-2011 of solo mining

[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

Never mentioned pools...

i count three mentions.. we are no longer in 2009-2011 of solo mining

Ho ho. There's no drama. Merely raising questions, what if scenarios, about possible futures.

[yusufjalal]

It seems as though the incentives are not aligned within the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Miners seek profit whilst some individual nodes seek integrity and some developers seek change. But change to what?

The other question is how do you balance all these incentives to create a sustainable network for the future?

I think that all of us here that want to see Bitcoin thrive as a means of transfering value and I think that's what Satoshi wants as well.

So how do improve transferring value online to make it more efficient, less costly and trustworthy for all the players?

In my opinion, I think the intended purpose of Bitcoin wasn't to make profit, but to create a utopian society where monetary systems have no value.

Money is just used to access goods and services and I think Bitcoin's aim is to destroy any form of access and provide goods and services for free once the cap is reached.

Sorry if I'm not being too technical but I'm fairly new in the crypto space and I just thought I would share my opinion.

What do you guys think was Satoshi's purpose in creating the Bitcoin protocol amidst the financial crisis of 2009?

I would love to know your thoughts.

[gentlemand]

In my opinion, I think the intended purpose of Bitcoin wasn't to make profit, but to create a utopian society where monetary systems have no value.

It doesn't really matter what the intended purpose was. It becomes what the subsequent users decide it is. Unfortunately those users are human and so avarice will shit all over anything more noble.

[yusufjalal]

In my opinion, I think the intended purpose of Bitcoin wasn't to make profit, but to create a utopian society where monetary systems have no value.

It doesn't really matter what the intended purpose was. It becomes what the subsequent users decide it is. Unfortunately those users are human and so avarice will shit all over anything more noble.

If I could just ask why would it not matter what the intended purpose was?

I'm sure the creator of the Bitcoin protocol had an intended purpose for it, like an end goal.

If extreme greed is the concern, don't we have the technology and the infrastructure in our society to produce everything at abundance for free?

The monetary system is what discriminates who gets to access which good or service is sought.

Anyways, that's just my opinion, what do you think it's intended purpose was if you don't mind me asking?