[2017-12-11] Lightning Network Inches Closer to Being Deployed on the Bitcoin

[tyz]

Lightning Network Inches Closer to Being Deployed on the Bitcoin Mainnet

The Lightning Network will be a game changer for Bitcoin. That is, assuming this concept comes to market in the near future. A lot of progress has been made behind the scenes as of late. A successful mainnet test, a new explorer, and more developers working on this technology are all positive developments.

http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/12/10/lightning-network-inches-closer-deployed-bitcoin-mainnet/

[BitHodler]

Lightning Network needs to be properly utilized as well when it's launched. In current state, SegWit has been active for quite some time now, but it's severely lacking actually economical adoption.

It still won't change most of the current inconveniences, but at least it would take some pressure off the network. I seriously don't know what services are waiting for. Whether it's now or later, the shift to SegWit is a necessity.

It's hard to swallow when you consider how much effort and actual drama it took us to get SegWit activated, and how low the actual adoption rate is currently. The sooner it happens, the less users have to suffer.

[Carlton Banks]

It still won't change most of the current inconveniences, but at least it would take some pressure off the network. I seriously don't know what services are waiting for. Whether it's now or later, the shift to SegWit is a necessity.

It's hard to swallow when you consider how much effort and actual drama it took us to get SegWit activated, and how low the actual adoption rate is currently. The sooner it happens, the less users have to suffer.

Strange isn't.


Services like Blockchain.info and Coinbase were pushing so hard to change the Bitcoin developers to some of their friends, er, I mean to fork Bitcoin to a bigger blocksize.

Now? Bigger blocksize is available for over 3 months, but Blockchain.info and Coinbase aren't making it available to their users. Interesting.


Why cause massive arguments about blocksizes, then refuse to use a feature that let's people use extra blocksize??

[Rahar02]

Yes, it's strange since Segwit has been activated for more than 3 months and most bitcoin service providers do not adopt it yet.
Blockchain will not have all those unconfirmed transactions if every exchange applied Segwit, as the biggest transactions must come from exchanges environment, whether people want to deposit bitcoin to exchanges or withdraw it out of exchanges.
Then, we may have Lightning network deployed on blockchain mainnet as the first testnet was successful.
Considering all the political interest inside the community, I'm not sure when it will be implemented on the chain, maybe several months.

[Lucius]

I think those who have the most money control this game,and who has more power and money then miners&exchanges.They are making fortune every time when events like this price increase occur,in order to get transaction confirmed in some normal time users pay terribly high fees.This seems to me a only logical explanation of this situation,we have something which can make transaction faster and cheaper but we can not use it because big players want to play by the old rules.Profit on fees which make exchanges and miners will be the biggest obstacle in implementing SegWit&LN.

[Xavofat]

Why cause massive arguments about blocksizes, then refuse to use a feature that let's people use extra blocksize??

To be fair, it's not like they've said "we will never use SegWit and we hate it".  Even though they've been very vague about it, Coinbase has said that they're working on implementing SegWit.  I can't see any clear signs of malicious intent.

Considering that some other wallets have implemented stable SegWit support quite a while ago though, they really do need to get a move on.

It could take much, much longer for them to implement LN if they take this long just implementing SegWit.

[J. Cooper]

Why cause massive arguments about blocksizes, then refuse to use a feature that let's people use extra blocksize??

To be fair, it's not like they've said "we will never use SegWit and we hate it".  Even though they've been very vague about it, Coinbase has said that they're working on implementing SegWit.  I can't see any clear signs of malicious intent.

Considering that some other wallets have implemented stable SegWit support quite a while ago though, they really do need to get a move on.

It could take much, much longer for them to implement LN if they take this long just implementing SegWit.

Remember that coinbase users still haven't gotten their Btrash? So it could take a while before it actually gets done. The sooner the better. Malicious intent or not, with all the revenue they're getting from all the new users and the outrageous fees they charge, they should be able to easily pay for a small team that will get it fixed by next week. That's the problem I have with these bigger centralized companies. They net millions of dollars every single day but yet they still fail to deliver quality customer service(thus is just an example). If LN is proven to be a viable solution and fully operational on the main chain we have to force them

[Carlton Banks]

Why cause massive arguments about blocksizes, then refuse to use a feature that let's people use extra blocksize??

To be fair, it's not like they've said "we will never use SegWit and we hate it".  Even though they've been very vague about it, Coinbase has said that they're working on implementing SegWit.  I can't see any clear signs of malicious intent.

Considering that some other wallets have implemented stable SegWit support quite a while ago though, they really do need to get a move on.

It could take much, much longer for them to implement LN if they take this long just implementing SegWit.

For 2 years, Coinbase (& others) claimed that blocksize increases were an urgent matter.

For 3+ months, they've had a chance to implement bigger blocks with both Segwit or Bitcoin Cash. They've had nearly 1 year to prepare for Segwit and several months to prepare to handle Bitcoin Cash. They've done nothing. At best, they're outrageously incompetent (and these people got their license how, exactly?)


How can anyone not question Coinbase's intentions?

[placergold]

hope the lightning network will be deployed soon, the bitcoin fee becomes a big issue now, it is ridiculous.

[veleten]

hope the lightning network will be deployed soon, the bitcoin fee becomes a big issue now, it is ridiculous.

the fees are ridiculous,the waiting time is outrageous
I managed to send a recommended fee transaction without looking on blockchain.info,eight days ago, 9.5 satoshi/byte .... hasn't been confirmed since
as for Coinbase and blockchain info,the intentions are clear,3 months should be enough to implement Segwit support or at least
give a roadmap,this should be the main priority (unless,of course you are interested in blockchain being clogged constantly)

[Carlton Banks]

the fees are ridiculous,the waiting time is outrageous

It cannot be both. There's a choice:

• Low waiting time, High fee
• High waiting time, Low fee

High waiting time high fee would mean paying low fees to get low waits. Bitcoin never would have become popular if that's how transaction fees worked.


So, if you pay low (9.5 satoshis per byte), you'll get slow confirmation times.

[J. Cooper]

hope the lightning network will be deployed soon, the bitcoin fee becomes a big issue now, it is ridiculous.

the fees are ridiculous,the waiting time is outrageous
I managed to send a recommended fee transaction without looking on blockchain.info,eight days ago, 9.5 satoshi/byte .... hasn't been confirmed since
as for Coinbase and blockchain info,the intentions are clear,3 months should be enough to implement Segwit support or at least
give a roadmap,this should be the main priority (unless,of course you are interested in blockchain being clogged constantly)

If they really wanted they would've already implemented SegWit by now. But since they haven't it's clear as day that they really only care about revenue. That's why I feel like we've got to move away from these centralized exchanges that are only in it for the monetary gain. And that isn't even the worst thing. They refuse to dedicate a part of their resources to the well being of the sole purpose they're making money. That's what's bothering me.

the fees are ridiculous,the waiting time is outrageous

It cannot be both. There's a choice:

• Low waiting time, High fee
• High waiting time, Low fee

High waiting time high fee would mean paying low fees to get low waits. Bitcoin never would have become popular if that's how transaction fees worked.


So, if you pay low (9.5 satoshis per byte), you'll get slow confirmation times.

Right now it can't. But shouldn't it be one of our goals moving into the future? I think it should. Otherwise I might as well use Western Union.

[Carlton Banks]

the fees are ridiculous,the waiting time is outrageous

It cannot be both. There's a choice:

• Low waiting time, High fee
• High waiting time, Low fee

High waiting time high fee would mean paying low fees to get low waits. Bitcoin never would have become popular if that's how transaction fees worked.


So, if you pay low (9.5 satoshis per byte), you'll get slow confirmation times.

Right now it can't. But shouldn't it be one of our goals moving into the future? I think it should.

Space on the blockchain is limited for a reason. The alternative is to have people wanting to justify CryptoKittens traded on the Bitcoin blockchain; the only way to stop people using something valuable for mindless purposes is to start charging money for it.

Otherwise I might as well use Western Union.

Or Bitcoin Cash. But there's a reason why Bitcoin devs limited the September blocksize upgrade to 4MB. And there's a reason why Bitcoin Cash can't get enough users to fill 1MB blocks (let alone the 8MB limit).