What is the development status of the Lightning Network?

[BitcoinArsenal]

I read the first time about Lightning Network back in 2015. At that time it seemed it is coming in the near future. About three years later, the Lightning Netwerk is still not implemented. If you look at the currently high transaction fees, then it is urgently necessary to find a solution.
Can someone say what the current state of development is and when the implementation is planned?

[VitKoyn]

I read the first time about Lightning Network back in 2015. At that time it seemed it is coming in the near future. About three years later, the Lightning Netwerk is still not implemented. If you look at the currently high transaction fees, then it is urgently necessary to find a solution.
Can someone say what the current state of development is and when the implementation is planned?

As much as possible I keep myself being updated about this but the current status is still under development, I think they are having hard time to find a way to make it compatible with Bitcoin network. As far as I know the developers of lightning network released lightning 0.3 alpha daemon version for those who want to test the software and I think it's not even close for the release of mainnet any time soon, maybe we will wait another year  
this links may help you keep updated about LN:
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd
https://twitter.com/lightning?lang=en

[serbad]

I dunno really, but if implemented it would set Bitcoin as the main arbiter in stone...90% + in dominance.? Maybe.?

[ImHash]

I dunno really, but if implemented it would set Bitcoin as the main arbiter in stone...90% + in dominance.? Maybe.?

Not gonna happen any time soon, Maybe never They wanted to increase the block size by 250KB and when they tried to do it, Someone with a significant amount of hash power forked bitcoin, Developers now are cautious, They think if they try to implement LN, Everyone leave BTC and fork a new one. If fees stay small, miners will mine empty blocks, If you were transferring fiat with bitcoin network you could argue about high fees, For someone trying to transfer a million bucks $3 is nothing.

[aleksej996]

I dunno really, but if implemented it would set Bitcoin as the main arbiter in stone...90% + in dominance.? Maybe.?

Not gonna happen any time soon, Maybe never They wanted to increase the block size by 250KB and when they tried to do it, Someone with a significant amount of hash power forked bitcoin, Developers now are cautious, They think if they try to implement LN, Everyone leave BTC and fork a new one. If fees stay small, miners will mine empty blocks, If you were transferring fiat with bitcoin network you could argue about high fees, For someone trying to transfer a million bucks $3 is nothing.

Miners have no incentive to mine empty blocks. Small fees still make a nice profit if there are more users, which LN is what it is all about. Scaling.
Mining is a self-correcting mechanism. There were miners when fees were smaller and there wasn't enough transactions, now there is more transactions so there will be more miners. Either way, no one is really worried about miners leaving Bitcoin, there will always be someone to mine it. Anyone who sees the value in Bitcoin will mine it, they would earn profit, even from small fees, if they didn't, then fees would increase and so on.

[bitart]

I dunno really, but if implemented it would set Bitcoin as the main arbiter in stone...90% + in dominance.? Maybe.?

Not gonna happen any time soon, Maybe never They wanted to increase the block size by 250KB and when they tried to do it, Someone with a significant amount of hash power forked bitcoin, Developers now are cautious, They think if they try to implement LN, Everyone leave BTC and fork a new one. If fees stay small, miners will mine empty blocks, If you were transferring fiat with bitcoin network you could argue about high fees, For someone trying to transfer a million bucks $3 is nothing.

Please check reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7h1v54/lightning_network_progress_72_out_of_75_tests_pass/
If this is true, then you should think over your first sentence
Also in another topic there was something about a Lightning Bitcoin fork end of December this year, but I'm not sure if it's another worthless alt or this is a fork needed for the LN to be implemented on Bitcoin. We'll see

[Saifher]

The lightning network is currently being tested by the devs responsible for it. The estimated time for its release is still unknown to everyone, but i'm pretty certain they're trying their best to deliver it as fast as possible, seeing as how the bitcoin blockchain desperately needs it to keep improving in the future.

[949miner]

It is all the fault of the big miners and those big companies behind them.

When there is a huge change on Bitcoin, all those companies will try to get as much profit as possible, just like it happened when a good update of the lightning network was TRYING to get implemented.

And that was the first step of the bitcoin cash fork, that is the reason of why bitcoin has been forked by the first time on the first day of August.

It is probably never going to get implemented, because the miners would not let it happen.

More than 30% of the hashpower is on China, and they are only supporting Bcash.

[aleksej996]

I dunno really, but if implemented it would set Bitcoin as the main arbiter in stone...90% + in dominance.? Maybe.?

Not gonna happen any time soon, Maybe never They wanted to increase the block size by 250KB and when they tried to do it, Someone with a significant amount of hash power forked bitcoin, Developers now are cautious, They think if they try to implement LN, Everyone leave BTC and fork a new one. If fees stay small, miners will mine empty blocks, If you were transferring fiat with bitcoin network you could argue about high fees, For someone trying to transfer a million bucks $3 is nothing.

Please check reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7h1v54/lightning_network_progress_72_out_of_75_tests_pass/
If this is true, then you should think over your first sentence
Also in another topic there was something about a Lightning Bitcoin fork end of December this year, but I'm not sure if it's another worthless alt or this is a fork needed for the LN to be implemented on Bitcoin. We'll see

There is no fork necessary for LN. Segwit helped a lot, other then that, it is all prepared when it comes to Bitcoin protocol.

It is all the fault of the big miners and those big companies behind them.

When there is a huge change on Bitcoin, all those companies will try to get as much profit as possible, just like it happened when a good update of the lightning network was TRYING to get implemented.

And that was the first step of the bitcoin cash fork, that is the reason of why bitcoin has been forked by the first time on the first day of August.

It is probably never going to get implemented, because the miners would not let it happen.

More than 30% of the hashpower is on China, and they are only supporting Bcash.

There is nothing miners can do to stop LN. There is no fork needed, so they can just leave the current network. Which they are free to do at any time and there is no reason why this would hurt Bitcoin. New miners will come to profit from lack of competition and bigger network.

[serbad]

I dunno really, but if implemented it would set Bitcoin as the main arbiter in stone...90% + in dominance.? Maybe.?

Not gonna happen any time soon, Maybe never They wanted to increase the block size by 250KB and when they tried to do it, Someone with a significant amount of hash power forked bitcoin, Developers now are cautious, They think if they try to implement LN, Everyone leave BTC and fork a new one. If fees stay small, miners will mine empty blocks, If you were transferring fiat with bitcoin network you could argue about high fees, For someone trying to transfer a million bucks $3 is nothing.

Please check reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7h1v54/lightning_network_progress_72_out_of_75_tests_pass/
If this is true, then you should think over your first sentence
Also in another topic there was something about a Lightning Bitcoin fork end of December this year, but I'm not sure if it's another worthless alt or this is a fork needed for the LN to be implemented on Bitcoin. We'll see

There is no fork necessary for LN. Segwit helped a lot, other then that, it is all prepared when it comes to Bitcoin protocol.

It is all the fault of the big miners and those big companies behind them.

When there is a huge change on Bitcoin, all those companies will try to get as much profit as possible, just like it happened when a good update of the lightning network was TRYING to get implemented.

And that was the first step of the bitcoin cash fork, that is the reason of why bitcoin has been forked by the first time on the first day of August.

It is probably never going to get implemented, because the miners would not let it happen.

More than 30% of the hashpower is on China, and they are only supporting Bcash.

There is nothing miners can do to stop LN. There is no fork needed, so they can just leave the current network. Which they are free to do at any time and there is no reason why this would hurt Bitcoin. New miners will come to profit from lack of competition and bigger network.

Evolution....... Layer 2.... the next level.!

[maxxdxx]

The promise of LN "anytime now" was persistently used by Blockstream to divert people away from the blocksize increase that were needed to uncripple BTC. I can't wait for when it is actually ready, if ever. Then we can truly see the practical merits of a settlement layer vs on chain transactions.