Great News For Bitcoin! Lightening Network First Payment Was Successful!

[Hoangle1523]

Sup guys!

I think this is a very important piece of info as we all kinda doomed bitcoin, but this might be a breakthrough.

The lightening network is a technology basically adds a layer of tech that can be a scaling solution for bitcoin, its supposed to prevent the high fees and slow transactions, with the same level of security.

A few days ago the first payment using the lightening network was successful, it was made to pay a phone bill.

The payment was INSTANT, and the fees were ZERO.

Here's the full article - https://www.coindesk.com/payment-provider-bitrefill-runs-successful-lightning-transaction-test/


Bottom line - the lightening network could solve most of the problems with bitcoin - if it does, its a huge step forward in terms of bitcoins scalability, meaning itll be easier to get mass adoption and use BTC for day-to-day transactions, and generally will be great news for the whole crypto section.

[avikz]

That's indeed a great news! We need this solution to counter the problem we are all facing with bitcoin network now. We currently have 183k unconfirmed transactions and the fees has gone up to an insane level. Due to these reasons people are moving their funds to Ripple and other currencies. While bitcoin price is going down constantly, Ripple has reached sky high within last few days. Even today XRP increased by around 35%. To win back investor's confidence, we need to have Lightening network activated for the entire network. Bad time going on, we need such solutions to come back to light. 

[bizul]

That's positive news, but still not enough to cheer the market back up. I don't want to sound negative but even when Lightening Network is fully implemented, it'll be too late for bitcoin to win all the investors who already moved to support new cryptos. New cryptos are implementing features that are missing from bitcoin such as anonymity and private transactions. Bitcoin is already outdated. I'm not saying that bitcoin will die. I'm sure bitcoin will stay forever however, it'll slow down gradually until another coin takes its place as the main crypto-currency.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

It is good news indeed, but what I find missing in the article is the approximate date when this could be widely used, as I think it will still take some time and that’s what the market is reflecting.

Does anyone know if the almost instant transaction and zero fees will also be the case when it gets massively adopted or will it have some fees and delays?

[Caesar-Giulius]

The lighting network is able to solve the transactions fee and time problems we are facing now. I am positive that more people will be using Bitcoin when it happens. 

[BTCforJoe]

While this is great, I’m not sure that the article is accurate in stating that there is no risk to security to run transactions on the lightning network. If my research has been correct, there are new security risks involved with using the lightning network; can anyone embellish on this?
Also, I had read that in order for the lightning network to take effect, both the sending and receiving wallets have to be online simultaneously to effectively become nodes on the network in order for the transaction to complete.

I think this is a scalable option, but there is a lot of learning and implementation that needs to happen in order for the network to take effect, am I right? And to have a large network of nodes to run, does this allow for the risk of centralization? I’m interested to read more about the pros and cons of the lightning network as a viable option to help fix current issues with bitcoin transactions. Anyone have any articles to link that are relevant?

[Annie9373]

Looking forward to LN, but better news will be when there is a confirmed date when it goes live.  too much uncertainty now.

[icanscript]

Apparently, we will not get a full answer before launching the lightning network. There are a lot of undisclosed questions. I hope the developers are professionals in their field.

[winchancer]

Excellent news!

Once started to be implemented it will send down shity altcoins where they belong.

[HabBear]

Bottom line - the lightening network could solve most of the problems with bitcoin - if it does, its a huge step forward in terms of bitcoins scalability, meaning itll be easier to get mass adoption and use BTC for day-to-day transactions, and generally will be great news for the whole crypto section.

Totally agree! Thanks for sharing the news and Coindesk link. I'll be watching this closely (where's the smiley guy eating popcorn emoji??).

Now, is the Lightening Network fully deployed with Bitcoin? If so, all transactions should be traveling over the Lightning Network, no? I'm sure I'm not aware of all the details.

Looking forward to LN, but better news will be when there is a confirmed date when it goes live.  too much uncertainty now.

Ah, thank you. I'll be looking for the "go live" date!

[fatalbert]

So how did the phone company receive their payment. It’s an iou promise until channel closes. To close channel need to pay big fees.

[player514]

Sup guys!

I think this is a very important piece of info as we all kinda doomed bitcoin, but this might be a breakthrough.

The lightening network is a technology basically adds a layer of tech that can be a scaling solution for bitcoin, its supposed to prevent the high fees and slow transactions, with the same level of security.

A few days ago the first payment using the lightening network was successful, it was made to pay a phone bill.

The payment was INSTANT, and the fees were ZERO.

Here's the full article - https://www.coindesk.com/payment-provider-bitrefill-runs-successful-lightning-transaction-test/


Bottom line - the lightening network could solve most of the problems with bitcoin - if it does, its a huge step forward in terms of bitcoins scalability, meaning itll be easier to get mass adoption and use BTC for day-to-day transactions, and generally will be great news for the whole crypto section.

This is indeed pretty good news. The fact of the matter is that Bitcoin is layered away from the general public due to this fear that they won't be able to get their money out due to the fees. If it's the case that transactions go through instantly (or at least quickly), then people won't be afraid to move towards using it as a currency. Right now, I feel like Bitcoin is more of an investment for people rather than a usable currency. Ideally, Bitcoin should be both of the above with the benefits of both so that we can move into a more tech driven world.

[VitKoyn]

Well that is really a great news, it will probably fix some problems that Bitcoin has but the problem is the implementation, lets say they already released the mainnet of lightning network and implemented it on the Bitcoin network, all wallets and exchanges should support it first for us to experience this cheaper and faster transactions and I doubt that wallets and exchanges will immediately update their service with lightning network. Just like segwit, it was released and implemented 4 months ago but still only few Bitcoin wallet/exchanges supports it.

[audaciousbeing]

Sup guys!

I think this is a very important piece of info as we all kinda doomed bitcoin, but this might be a breakthrough.

The lightening network is a technology basically adds a layer of tech that can be a scaling solution for bitcoin, its supposed to prevent the high fees and slow transactions, with the same level of security.

A few days ago the first payment using the lightening network was successful, it was made to pay a phone bill.

The payment was INSTANT, and the fees were ZERO.

Here's the full article - https://www.coindesk.com/payment-provider-bitrefill-runs-successful-lightning-transaction-test/


Bottom line - the lightening network could solve most of the problems with bitcoin - if it does, its a huge step forward in terms of bitcoins scalability, meaning itll be easier to get mass adoption and use BTC for day-to-day transactions, and generally will be great news for the whole crypto section.

Reading through the article actually just made my day. Enough of the whole number of days for transaction to confirm or the exceeding high fees that a lot of people have been complaining which have raised the bar for people to come into bitcoin and shut those who into it forced to keep waiting for the situation to be better but today I am happy that a break through is in sight even though it might not be generally available, its something to behold and be happy about.

I must confess I have been waiting for this breakthrough that it seems the developers felt the only way was just creation of unlimited forks. When this is fully rolled out hopefully, we get to see some sanity being restored.

[Kemarit]

While this is great, I’m not sure that the article is accurate in stating that there is no risk to security to run transactions on the lightning network. If my research has been correct, there are new security risks involved with using the lightning network; can anyone embellish on this?
Also, I had read that in order for the lightning network to take effect, both the sending and receiving wallets have to be online simultaneously to effectively become nodes on the network in order for the transaction to complete.

This is correct mate, both parties should be open to make the transaction successful. The only question is what if the other parties chooses to close its channel? What will happen to the transaction. There's also this sort of broadcasting previous channels as well, but I need to read more and understand how everything stands out. If more technical people like @HCP can chime in it will be a good discussions for all of us.

I think this is a scalable option, but there is a lot of learning and implementation that needs to happen in order for the network to take effect, am I right? And to have a large network of nodes to run, does this allow for the risk of centralization? I’m interested to read more about the pros and cons of the lightning network as a viable option to help fix current issues with bitcoin transactions. Anyone have any articles to link that are relevant?

Yes, there will be sort of learning curve not just for newbies but for all of us because this will be a new technology. So many good reads around the net, like in medium but sometimes you need to filter out which info is correct.


On the bright side, this is really a welcoming news. Since a heard a few weeks that they have been testing it, this is the first time I saw that a live production test is successful. We all have been talking about Lightning Network to be the solution so I hope it will be implemented in Q1 next year so that all this issues can be fix ASAP. However, I'm expecting a lot of problems in the beginning, but I think we can get a hang on it after a few months of using it ourselves. Goodluck to everyone and let see how it goes.

[Marry Finch]

It is good news indeed, but what I find missing in the article is the approximate date when this could be widely used, as I think it will still take some time and that’s what the market is reflecting.

Does anyone know if the almost instant transaction and zero fees will also be the case when it gets massively adopted or will it have some fees and delays?

Earlier it was reported that the network of lightning will be introduced into bitcoin approximately immediately after the New Year. I hope it will not take long to wait. Meanwhile, bitcoin continues to lose its former popularity. Many are switching to the use of other coins, such as Ethereum, Ripple, bitcoin in cash.

[Woodies]

Thanks for sharing this great news! 

[QuestionAuthority]

Cross-chain atomic swaps will help whatever cryptocurrency becomes the predominate one. Not just bitcoin. Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja are going to become famously wealthy regardless of which crypto wins. Congrats!

[hatshepsut93]

This is great, but you shouldn't expect that Lightning will soon get released, there's still a lot of bugs across its implementations, some compatibility issues and other problems. And since we are dealing with money, it's not acceptable to  release a half-baked software - every bug can potentially cause millions of dollars worth of damage. So, the answer to a very popular question "When it will be released?" is - when it will be safe enough. Everyone should keep in mind that Bitcoin is a software in very active development phase, and open source development is usually slower than centralized development.

[jjacob]

Well that is really a great news, it will probably fix some problems that Bitcoin has but the problem is the implementation, lets say they already released the mainnet of lightning network and implemented it on the Bitcoin network, all wallets and exchanges should support it first for us to experience this cheaper and faster transactions and I doubt that wallets and exchanges will immediately update their service with lightning network. Just like segwit, it was released and implemented 4 months ago but still only few Bitcoin wallet/exchanges supports it.

There is some progress towards easing network congestion, but the question is whether it is too little too late. Segwit has been implemented, but there seems to be no reduction in transaction fees. I just hope that the migration to alt coins is not irreversible. There may be a certain inertia amongst crypto users to shift back to Bitcoin.

[eaLiTy]

Everyone is waiting for the lightening network to be implemented on bitcoin,it will take some time to get it implemented in bitcoin,it will solve the transaction issues we have at the moment but i doubt we will find some new troubles in the mean time,either way it is a good news for tech savvies so that they could work on implementing this to solve many issues.

[filharvey]

That's positive news, but still not enough to cheer the market back up. I don't want to sound negative but even when Lightening Network is fully implemented, it'll be too late for bitcoin to win all the investors who already moved to support new cryptos. New cryptos are implementing features that are missing from bitcoin such as anonymity and private transactions. Bitcoin is already outdated. I'm not saying that bitcoin will die. I'm sure bitcoin will stay forever however, it'll slow down gradually until another coin takes its place as the main crypto-currency.

Certainly not.Bitcoin had been the ultimate choice of most of the investors.The only drawback it was facing was the high transaction fee.Most of the investors had been longing for the lightening network to get activated.This is now really a great news.This would once again make investors to return to bitcoin once again proving it to be the king of crypto currencies.

[7788bitcoin]

There is some progress towards easing network congestion, but the question is whether it is too little too late. Segwit has been implemented, but there seems to be no reduction in transaction fees. I just hope that the migration to alt coins is not irreversible. There may be a certain inertia amongst crypto users to shift back to Bitcoin.

If you are talking about the network up gradation these implementation are not in full effect,we are waiting for the lightening network to be implemented in bitcoin and that is the main upgrade everyone is looking forward as it will reduce the network fees and network delay we are facing at the moment,is it too late,it might be ,but implementing it will take time,you cannot switch it just like that.

[Anti-Cen]

BTC was under testing for years and look at the mess we have got today not that this was not
planned from the word go.

20,000 miners are not needed, too little cake to go around and no one trusts the development
team anymore or the miners so forget the Lightning Network because it is a sticking plaster that
uses hubs and these are banks or called gateways on the Ripple network.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

Fees are at crazy rates, fix the max fee in code and cull the miners because we have far too many
all wasting energy and as such offer no useful service and I won't even get into the 51% takeover bullshit
that has been floated around by snake oil salesmen.

We are the market, we are speaking so fix the fees or BTC will keep going down, it's that simple

[brontosaurus]

Sup guys!

I think this is a very important piece of info as we all kinda doomed bitcoin, but this might be a breakthrough.

The lightening network is a technology basically adds a layer of tech that can be a scaling solution for bitcoin, its supposed to prevent the high fees and slow transactions, with the same level of security.

A few days ago the first payment using the lightening network was successful, it was made to pay a phone bill.

The payment was INSTANT, and the fees were ZERO.

Here's the full article - https://www.coindesk.com/payment-provider-bitrefill-runs-successful-lightning-transaction-test/


Bottom line - the lightening network could solve most of the problems with bitcoin - if it does, its a huge step forward in terms of bitcoins scalability, meaning itll be easier to get mass adoption and use BTC for day-to-day transactions, and generally will be great news for the whole crypto section.

The much anticipated update is finally here. This improvement will surely eradicate the long lasting scaling problems of bitcoin and blockchain. The last attack on bitcoin when the fees aggrevated to around 900 sats/byte has really ended the utility of bitcoin as a currency. With this network finally bitcoin might be of use as a means of settlement rather than just an asset.

That's positive news, but still not enough to cheer the market back up. I don't want to sound negative but even when Lightening Network is fully implemented, it'll be too late for bitcoin to win all the investors who already moved to support new cryptos. New cryptos are implementing features that are missing from bitcoin such as anonymity and private transactions. Bitcoin is already outdated. I'm not saying that bitcoin will die. I'm sure bitcoin will stay forever however, it'll slow down gradually until another coin takes its place as the main crypto-currency.

Certainly not.Bitcoin had been the ultimate choice of most of the investors.The only drawback it was facing was the high transaction fee.Most of the investors had been longing for the lightening network to get activated.This is now really a great news.This would once again make investors to return to bitcoin once again proving it to be the king of crypto currencies.

That isn't really a drawback for the investors. High transaction fees doesn't affects them. Investors focus on returns and volatility of any coin. Investors still invest in bitcoin. Its the investors who have taken it to 19K despite of such high fees and time. Now what we are seeing is just a correction and nothing else.

[Anti-Cen]

it is a good news for tech savvies so that they could work on implementing this to solve many issues.

I am one of these "tech savvies" and made a good living writing systems over the years
so pull your eyes away from the flashing lights on the slot machine and listen.

The software architecture of BTC was never going to scale, this would had been known from
day one and CPU war between miners is not doing anyone any good, stupid plan all along
as is proof of work to stop spamming.

From a technical point of view the wheels are falling off the wagon !

[vv181]

Well that is really a great news, it will probably fix some problems that Bitcoin has but the problem is the implementation, lets say they already released the mainnet of lightning network and implemented it on the Bitcoin network, all wallets and exchanges should support it first for us to experience this cheaper and faster transactions and I doubt that wallets and exchanges will immediately update their service with lightning network. Just like segwit, it was released and implemented 4 months ago but still only few Bitcoin wallet/exchanges supports it.

There is some progress towards easing network congestion, but the question is whether it is too little too late. Segwit has been implemented, but there seems to be no reduction in transaction fees. I just hope that the migration to alt coins is not irreversible. There may be a certain inertia amongst crypto users to shift back to Bitcoin.

Segwit should have improved the transaction fees and transaction confirmation times, but due to lack of adaptability of the segwit many people didn't feel the difference about it.

[Anti-Cen]

That isn't really a drawback for the investors. High transaction fees doesn't affects them. Investors focus on returns and volatility of any coin. Investors still invest in bitcoin. Its the investors who have taken it to 19K despite of such high fees and time. Now what we are seeing is just a correction and nothing else.

I see from your footer that you are into gambling so lets cut the crap about investing and call it by it's real name "Gambling"

The miners took a gamble when BTC was shooting up that they could increase the fees because they have become a monopoly
or maybe you would like to explain why we need 20,000 full nodes just to perform 7 transactions per second  

This correction is what you get when you have a nice car and the roads or network don't work, you sell your car so fix the
roads (fees) or the price will go down because people are jumping out all over the place.

"Let the trend be your friend" is a term you would have come across had you worked in finance

[darkangel11]

The lightening network

Now, is the Lightening Network

Everyone is waiting for the lightening network

longing for the lightening network to get activated.

Guys, do even know what you're reading? It's lightning, like that spark in the sky, not lightening, unless you're hoping to be enlightened by it  

We were waiting for this for months. I think there has been a thread about it last year, but people forgot about it when the whole big block quarrel has started and then we had all that drama with BCH and another drama with 2x... Lightning is a great solution because it doesn't interfere with BTC but works around it. I hope this will bring more people into Bitcoin and raise confidence that we have lost recently when the fees rose to $50+

[Anti-Cen]

Segwit should have improved the transaction fees and transaction confirmation times, but due to lack of adaptability of the segwit many people didn't feel the difference about it.

I am moving over to Segwit and it should be faster for now but it still won't go much faster as the
block-chain starts too fill up.

BTC does 7 transactions per second and my guess for Segwit would put it at about double the speed
under the same conditions so in other words they can double the size of a piston (Blocks) in a steam engine
but it's still a steam engine.

Where segwit will pull ahead is because the team is more radical and they understand that they will
need to move over to a petrol engine or better still an electric engine and I don't think they will let the miners
piss all over everyone like the BTC development team has done.

Read up a bit on Ripple and how the protocol works, peek at IOTA Tangle and then see HashGraph
that is not used yet and is under development and then you will understand why I am talking about
old steam engines with Segwit and BTC

[Anti-Cen]

We were waiting for this for months. I think there has been a thread about it last year, but people forgot about it when the whole big block quarrel has started and then we had all that drama with BCH and another drama with 2x... Lightning is a great solution because it doesn't interfere with BTC but works around it. I hope this will bring more people into Bitcoin and raise confidence that we have lost recently when the fees rose to $50+

So if ledgers on this BTC network keeps a balance of BTC then whats trading on Lightning ? Hens teeth maybe or
is it IOU's for BTC and if so then who lends out the IOU's to be settled at the end of the month.

Boy this reminds me of VISA card and bankers dreaming up money just like they do already and I am not alone
in saying this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

PoW and mining solved one problem and created ten more and this is just were we are heading with
lightning but instead of Bob talking to Alice we have Chow Ming mo and Rabdub Remead thrown into
the mix and they don't talk the same language or share the same tokens.

"confidence " will be restored to some degree when the miners stop mugging us and if too many exist
in the CPU War BTC has created to make a living from just mining coins then some will have to go, like
90% of them because we simply don't need 20,000 to process seven transactions a second

[darkangel11]

I watched the video and I partially agree with it. Mainly with what was said about Gavin and Blockstream. I knew there was something off about this guy back when there was this whole theory about his involvement with the CIA.
Anyway, according to the author of the video we should have raised block size long ago, but we didn't... or maybe we did through BCH? Is that the solution? IS it a better solution than the lightning network? IMO it's certainly better than being stuck in 1mb blocks with unbearable fees. I would be willing to accept the nodes as a temporary solution to reduce the network load until a better solution is found.

[Anti-Cen]

Anyway, according to the author of the video we should have raised block size long ago, but we didn't... or maybe we did through BCH? Is that the solution? IS it a better solution than the lightning network? IMO it's certainly better than being stuck in 1mb blocks with unbearable fees. I would be willing to accept the nodes as a temporary solution to reduce the network load until a better solution is found.

If you fixed windows then would you like un breakable glass or was you a doctor then would you like to see the world
without a need for doctors.

The dev team can fix this one in hours but are enjoying the profit too much and writing a new system
but any two bid 1st year software student could work out that BTC would not scale and that you don't need
20,000 nodes to service just 7 transactions a second that are only 250 bytes of input data.

VISA has 1/100th the CPU power BTC network has and can preform 25,000 transactions a second
and Ripple can scale to that too but BTC cannot and VISA do it without splitting the ledger so what does
that tell you about the Lightning sticking plaster. 

[Anti-Cen]

This is great, but you shouldn't expect that Lightning will soon get released, there's still a lot of bugs across its implementations, some compatibility issues and other problems. And since we are dealing with money, it's not acceptable to  release a half-baked software - every bug can potentially cause millions of dollars worth of damage. So, the answer to a very popular question "When it will be released?" is - when it will be safe enough. Everyone should keep in mind that Bitcoin is a software in very active development phase, and open source development is usually slower than centralized development.

You make them sound like professional software developers and i will even agree with the last part " slower than centralized development."
but lets look at the facts.

1. BTC was never going to scale to mass adoption.
2. Good code would allow block size switch and size change in seconds
3. PoW wastes electrical energy
4. Mining = CPU war
5. 20,000 full nodes to do just 7 trades a second is madness
6. Lightning poor model to integrate, sticking plaster and is too late

As a software developer for 35 years (Back to ZX 48k Spectrum) with various letters after my
name I would be quite interested in entering into a debate over the points I have raised and
then lets see if anyone is swimming without any trunks on 

[crypto_Butterfly]

It looks a great news at first sight but definitely we need to see more carefully. I believe time will tell us if its really that great or just a fake hope.

[HeRetiK]

[...]

Read up a bit on Ripple and how the protocol works, peek at IOTA Tangle and then see HashGraph
that is not used yet and is under development and then you will understand why I am talking about
old steam engines with Segwit and BTC

[...]

VISA has 1/100th the CPU power BTC network has and can preform 25,000 transactions a second
and Ripple can scale to that too but BTC cannot and VISA do it without splitting the ledger so what does
that tell you about the Lightning sticking plaster. 

I don't know about HashGraph, but every other solution you propose is based on using a central entity to manage transactions and prevent double-spends. That's a trivial problem that has been solved decades ago. That is not the problem that Bitcoin has solved.

What Bitcoin solved by applying PoW to the double-spend problem is something wholly different. It seems wasteful, it looks weird, but it's the only meaningful and secure solution so far that allows transactions without relying on a central entity.

One can argue about whether decentralized currencies are worth it, but arguing that centralization is what would help cryptocurrencies scale is approaching the problem from the wrong angle.

So if ledgers on this BTC network keeps a balance of BTC then whats trading on Lightning ? Hens teeth maybe or
is it IOU's for BTC and if so then who lends out the IOU's to be settled at the end of the month.

[...]

PoW and mining solved one problem and created ten more and this is just were we are heading with
lightning but instead of Bob talking to Alice we have Chow Ming mo and Rabdub Remead thrown into
the mix and they don't talk the same language or share the same tokens.

[...]

Lightning Network is not "trading" anything. It's not a different language or a different set of tokens. It's Bitcoin scripts handling bitcoins. No new tokens that get conjured out of nothing. No IOU's that come with counter-party risk. Just Bitcoin.

[khaled0111]

The lightning Network will not affect the cryptocurrency market immediately. We will wait for months before we can see the impact of LN on Bitcoin.
Devs are doing their best, but it is always up to users whether to support it or not.
I am certain that the lightning network will be massively adopted since all users are suffering from high trasactions fees.

[pixie85]

The lightning Network will not affect the cryptocurrency market immediately. We will wait for months before we can see the impact of LN on Bitcoin.
Devs are doing their best, but it is always up to users whether to support it or not.
I am certain that the lightning network will be massively adopted since all users are suffering from high trasactions fees.

It should be up and running in 4-6 months. By that time we may be deep into a bear market and the whole distribution of wealth will change. Those who were too late for this month's rally will have another chance and the current holders will have a chance to show their dedication.
I also agree with you that it's going to be adopted. Forks were dividing the community and lightning offers us a resolution without the need to make a new coin.

[Anti-Cen]

I don't know about HashGraph, but every other solution you propose is based on using a central entity to manage transactions and prevent double-spends. That's a trivial problem that has been solved decades ago. That is not the problem that Bitcoin has solved.

Welcome and at last someone who's skills extend past slot machines so lets do battle friend!

I like the concept of centralization even less than you in the way it's being presented with banksters calling the shoots but we can have
a decentralized system of coordinators without having to bend over to know who. See Ripple and how trust is established (Yes Ripple is banker central, i know!)

What Bitcoin solved by applying PoW to the double-spend problem is something wholly different. It seems wasteful, it looks weird, but it's the only meaningful and secure solution so far that allows transactions without relying on a central entity.

Wow, hold on a second because we never needed PoW in the past and tight loops are to be avoided and spamming is avoided
by transactions fees anyway and what about the waste of energy so it now costs 90KWH of electric to process 250 bytes of data.
Reeving engine with car out of gear is crazy

One can argue about whether decentralized currencies are worth it, but arguing that centralization is what would help cryptocurrencies scale is approaching the problem from the wrong angle.

See above comment but let me add to this because virgin nodes starting up uses DNS to get a list of well known nodes anyway
but you will also note that DNS serves cannot steel coins (Maybe they could thinking about it again) so the white-paper broke
it's number one rule anyway and is government blocked domain names on one server then others would take over like OpenDNS

Lightning Network is not "trading" anything. It's not a different language or a different set of tokens. It's Bitcoin scripts handling bitcoins. No new tokens that get conjured out of nothing. No IOU's that come with counter-party risk. Just Bitcoin.

OK if all the BTC token are in the ledger, you know the thing that's all blocked up then me sending you $0.01 must be a fake
BTC because to change the balance in the official ledger would result on blocks getting bigger and this fake is a token, cannot be original
so we need hubs (See documentation) and someone must trust that I am good for this money sent over a channel .............................

Hubs are banks (Semi trusted) and use IOU's so lets not play with words, no one lends anything for free and will charge for the speed too

Your comment makes no sense and something must be moving between Alice and Bob plus this video contradicts you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

[HeRetiK]

I like the concept of centralization even less than you in the way it's being presented with banksters calling the shots but we can have
a decentralized system of coordinators without having to bend over to know one. See Ripple and how trust is established

Even a decentralized system is only as strong as its weakest link if it has a single point of failure. See Ripple and how tokens are issued.

The consensus protocol itself is quite interesting and I'm sure that LN has borrowed some pages from it (assuming there is no prior work on which both protocols are based upon) but I still find it hard to trust a payment network that relies on a central corporate entity for both development and token issuance. I'm sure that Ripple has merits of its own but it's not quite what I expect from a cryptocurrency.

What Bitcoin solved by applying PoW to the double-spend problem is something wholly different. It seems wasteful, it looks weird, but it's the only meaningful and secure solution so far that allows transactions without relying on a central entity.

Wow, hold on a second because we never needed PoW in the past and tight loops are to be avoided and spamming is avoided
by transactions fees anyway and what about the waste of energy so it now costs 90KWH of electric to process 250 bytes of data.
Reeving engine with car out of gear is crazy

PoW is not about preventing spam transactions, it's about preventing double-spend attacks. Before PoW came along you couldn't rely on keeping a valid, reliable ledger state without a central entity acting as arbiter. Bitcoin's master stroke is making the network not only fault-tolerant against attackers, but actually using what would usually be an attack -- ie. brute force -- to protect the network from the very same class of attacks.

Like everything this approach comes with a trade-off, which in this case is secure decentralization -- on every aspect -- at the cost of performance. At least to me the electricity cost involved seems like a step upward from the waste of human resources that is banking, but that's up for debate of course. One could argue whether the problem of central entities controlling finance is actually a problem worth solving, but assuming it is, PoW is unfortunately our best bet so far. There are other PoX approaches of course, but their viability is a different discussion.

One can argue about whether decentralized currencies are worth it, but arguing that centralization is what would help cryptocurrencies scale is approaching the problem from the wrong angle.

See above comment but let me add to this because virgin nodes starting up uses DNS to get a list of well known nodes anyway
but you will also note that DNS serves cannot steel coins (Maybe they could thinking about it again) so the white-paper broke
it's number one rule anyway and is government blocked domain names on one server then others would take over like OpenDNS

I'm not sure I quite follow you here. You don't need to rely on DNS to connect to other nodes. You can't use DNS spoofing to fake transactions. Worst case you could probably prevent specific nodes from sending or receiving transactions, but that would require a lot of targeted resources without much impact on Bitcoin as a whole.


Assuming you haven't already, you should really look into how LN works. You might be surprised that it's not quite the plaster you expect it to be.

Here's a good starting point:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/

[Anti-Cen]

Even a decentralized system is only as strong as its weakest link if it has a single point of failure. See Ripple and how tokens are issued.

DNS does not have single point of failure and uses a tree structure of command but even if you took the top node down the system still works
and if needs be the structure could assign itself a new top level node using voting. Think more down the lines of Coordinators in relation to coins
to break nodes down into useful groups. Tree structure will scale better than what we have now, no brainier.

Coordinators will all so deal with trust rating so nodes that start playing stupid get blocked so good bye BS about 51% attack and hello GUID node
registration.

The consensus protocol itself is quite interesting and I'm sure that LN has borrowed some pages from it (assuming there is no prior work on which both protocols are based upon) but I still find it hard to trust a payment network that relies on a central corporate entity for both development and token issuance. I'm sure that Ripple has merits of its own but it's not quite what I expect from a cryptocurrency.

The currency and network has got to be separated and it will be in the end so we all have a public address and any currency gets sent to the address
so in effect the wallet has one address instead of ten pub/private keys which are still present but used after handshake and protocol is setup.

PoW is not about preventing spam transactions, it's about preventing double-spend attacks. Before PoW came along you couldn't rely on keeping a valid, reliable ledger state without a central entity acting as arbiter. Bitcoin's master stroke is making the network not only fault-tolerant against attackers, but actually using what would usually be an attack -- ie. brute force -- to protect the network from the very same class of attacks.

Spamming, double spend both prevented by PoW from what i read but PoW stupid and is being dumped by everyone even in the forks.

I'm not sure I quite follow you here. You don't need to rely on DNS to connect to other nodes. You can't use DNS spoofing to fake transactions. Worst case you could probably prevent specific nodes from sending or receiving transactions, but that would require a lot of targeted resources without much impact on Bitcoin as a whole.

Virgin nodes at startup use DNS to get list of well know nodes and i can find you the address if you like but after that it uses cached IP-Address to find
a live node on the network and nodes relay between each other a list and the state of other nodes. I am talking new node start up.

Assuming you haven't already, you should really look into how LN works. You might be surprised that it's not quite the plaster you expect it to be.

I did and you did not deal with what Alice sends to bob and you are forced to accept Coordinators (Hubs/Gateways) in LN anyway so why not
wrap it up by breaking the 200gb block-chain down into more a tree structure and then it will scale better and you don't need IOU's or fake tokens.

Block-Chain is a liked list of headers but groups of nodes organised by Coordinators can deal with sections to provide redundancy within the section so in effect the LN patch up
(or rewrite in disguise) is at the wrong level and as a transaction hits one set of node then a request will be sent to another set of nodes but after that the reply will be cached
Here I am talking about having to trace back down the chain to the origin of each coin part back to when it was mined

Mining is a waste of time, nodes get paid for transactions, far too much time and effort plus code is dedicated to printing new coins
and ten possible alternatives exist here so stop the competition where effectively nodes are fighting other nodes and making hardware
manufactures and big oil rich and happy. THIS PART IS THE BIGGEST FUCK-UP EVER DEVISED MY MAN!

Break the current 200gb Block-chain down to say 16 X 16 sections and each section has a group of nodes then you will start getting some speed but if i am honest
it's patching something instead of having a white sheet of paper to work from and i think that's whats needed and i will add this concept of public ledger we all
love and trust does allow anyone to clone it and produce a forks so that needs a long term solution 

Maybe wallets need voting rights so we can appoint people as trustees and then go at it from that angle because all S-M has done is left a mess that won't scale, wastes
energy and started CPU wars plus allows forks and clones.

[HeRetiK]

DNS does not have single point of failure and uses a tree structure of command but even if you took the top node down the system still works
and if needs be the structure could assign itself a new top level node using voting. Think more down the lines of Coordinators in relation to coins
to break nodes down into useful groups. Tree structure will scale better than what we have now, no brainier.

1) DNS is not secure, 2) easily blocked and 3) not used to transact millions of dollars worth of currency.

Coordinators will all so deal with trust rating so nodes that start playing stupid get blocked so good bye BS about 51% attack and hello GUID node
registration.

Coordinators require trust, which is something cryptocurrencies are striving to get rid of.

The consensus protocol itself is quite interesting and I'm sure that LN has borrowed some pages from it (assuming there is no prior work on which both protocols are based upon) but I still find it hard to trust a payment network that relies on a central corporate entity for both development and token issuance. I'm sure that Ripple has merits of its own but it's not quite what I expect from a cryptocurrency.

The currency and network has got to be separated and it will be in the end so we all have a public address and any currency gets sent to the address
so in effect the wallet has one address instead of ten pub/private keys which are still present but used after handshake and protocol is setup.

Separating the currency from the network leads to counterparty risk.

PoW is not about preventing spam transactions, it's about preventing double-spend attacks. Before PoW came along you couldn't rely on keeping a valid, reliable ledger state without a central entity acting as arbiter. Bitcoin's master stroke is making the network not only fault-tolerant against attackers, but actually using what would usually be an attack -- ie. brute force -- to protect the network from the very same class of attacks.

Spamming, double spend both prevented by PoW from what i read but PoW stupid and is being dumped by everyone even in the forks.

PoW has nothing to do with spam transactions. "PoW is stupid" is not a counter-argument. All meaningful BTC hardforks are relying on PoW so far.

I'm not sure I quite follow you here. You don't need to rely on DNS to connect to other nodes. You can't use DNS spoofing to fake transactions. Worst case you could probably prevent specific nodes from sending or receiving transactions, but that would require a lot of targeted resources without much impact on Bitcoin as a whole.

Virgin nodes at startup use DNS to get list of well know nodes and i can find you the address if you like but after that it uses cached IP-Address to find
a live node on the network and nodes relay between each other a list and the state of other nodes. I am talking new node start up.

Everyone can set up nodes using IP addresses instead of domain names. The application of DNS is irrelevant to this discussion.

Assuming you haven't already, you should really look into how LN works. You might be surprised that it's not quite the plaster you expect it to be.

I did and you did not deal with what Alice sends to bob and you are forced to accept Coordinators (Hubs/Gateways) in LN anyway so why not
wrap it up by breaking the 200gb block-chain down into more a tree structure and then it will scale better and you don't need IOU's or fake tokens.

No such things as coordinators / hubs / gateways in the LN network topology. Alice is a LN node. Bob is a LN node. Everyone en route between Alice and Bob is a node.

Once again, no IOUs. No fake tokens. All very real, time based transactions.

I know too little about blockchain sharding to argue either for or against it, I guess I'll watch Ethereum to see how this works out. Not sure if there ever has been any discourse of applying sharding to the Bitcoin blockchain. It seems to come with its own set of problems however.

Block-Chain is a liked list of headers but groups of nodes organised by Coordinators can deal with sections to provide redundancy within the section so in effect the LN patch up (or rewrite in disguise) is at the wrong level and as a transaction hits one set of node then a request will be sent to another set of nodes but after that the reply will be cached.

Assuming blockchain sharding relies on coordinators, we have a weak point and needless complexity right there. I do assume though that there are more effective approaches than that.

LN is neither a rewrite nor a patch btw, it's simply an additional protocol layer. Much like OMNI and XCP before it. And like HTTP on top of TCP/IP before even that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the reply will be cached". If this still refers to LN, a channel state is maintained, but kept up to date by enforcing state updates by using presigned timelocked transactions.

Here I am talking about having to trace back down the chain to the origin of each coin part back to when it was mined

If this still refers to LN, coins can still be traced back to their origin, even when using LN.

Break the current 200gb Block-chain down to say 16 X 16 sections and each section has a group of nodes then you will start getting some speed but if i am honest
it's patching something instead of having a white sheet of paper to work from and i think that's whats needed and i will add this concept of public ledger we all
love and trust does allow anyone to clone it and produce a forks so that needs a long term solution

You're welcome to fork then Or contribute to one of the alts that are eying blockchain sharding right now (assuming ETH is not the only one).

Maybe wallets need voting rights so we can appoint people as trustees and then go at it from that angle because all S-M has done is left a mess that won't scale, wastes
energy and started CPU wars plus allows forks and clones.

Read up on sybil attacks on why this is a bad idea. Also the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to go trustless. Trying to create a trustee network comes with problems of its own. It's barely working with Root and Intermediary CAs. It becomes even less reliable with incentives to defect, such as the case with digital cash.

[Anti-Cen]

1) DNS is not secure, 2) easily blocked and 3) not used to transact millions of dollars worth of currency.

1. Coordinators don't store money 2. DNS stood test of time 3 Nothing blocks up more than BTC.
4. Stop jumping around with vague arguments

Coordinators require trust, which is something cryptocurrencies are striving to get rid of.

No they are not and LN uses hubs so stop shooting yourself in the foot

Separating the currency from the network leads to counterparty risk.

ETH, Ripple, HashGraph  are doing just that but stay in the past if you want

PoW has nothing to do with spam transactions. "PoW is stupid" is not a counter-argument.

Again that's not what i read but if you feel that revving the car engine without putting car in gear is not
a counter argument then I cannot help you. 

All meaningful BTC hardforks are relying on PoW so far.

Did you decide which ones are "meaningful" and why do you think the others have taken it out
and you also ignore my point about it not being needed in the first place.

Once again, no IOUs. No fake tokens. All very real, time based transactions.

Genuine BTC is in block-chain and changed to them would not help anything to scale so
something must be in these "real, time based transactions " but you don't seem to know
what so i will continue to assume IOU's or fakes   

Assuming blockchain sharding relies on coordinators, we have a weak point and needless complexity right there. I do assume though that there are more effective approaches than that.

Then the world must all be wrong, LN must be wrong using hubs and if your looking for "complexity" then look no further than mining 

LN is neither a rewrite nor a patch btw, it's simply an additional protocol layer. Much like OMNI and XCP before it. And like HTTP on top of TCP/IP before even that.

I don't mind new protocol to talk to the block chain but that's not what it is and you know it and your comments fly's in the
face of whats being said about the LN saving BTC in fess and dealing with micro-transactions   

I'm not sure what you mean by "the reply will be cached". If this still refers to LN, a channel state is maintained, but kept up to date by enforcing state updates by using presigned timelocked transactions.

Comments about caching was in relation to BTC block-chain nodes in groups, nothing at all to do with LN

If this still refers to LN, coins can still be traced back to their origin, even when using LN.

Fine the IOU or Clone or fake has a reference to a wallet in BTC but it's still not the original wallet in the
BC that is being transacted upon so this creates more problems than what it solves during settlement
and is a right budge up and you talk about avoiding "complexity"

You're welcome to fork then Or contribute to one of the alts that are eying blockchain sharding right now (assuming ETH is not the only one).

Yes lots of forks as others try to cash in on BTC but some are just doing forks to fix what is wrong and are
doing it in a rush. Me myself if i wanted to entice BTC members using air-drops would import the BC into
a completely redesign system and split the block-chain up into more manageable sized sections as has
been good code practice from year dot on any system that needs to scale.

Read up on sybil attacks on why this is a bad idea. Also the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to go trustless. Trying to create a trustee network comes with problems of its own. It's barely working with Root and Intermediary CAs. It becomes even less reliable with incentives to defect, such as the case with digital cash.

Yes we are back to decentralizes and trustless again in LN terms the decentralizes I am talking about is the same as being used
in LN Hubs (CENTRAL POINTS) so that a shoot to your other foot and throwing trust out the window as if it's a some type of religion
is not the answer.

Here we find that the medicine is worse than the disease as implemented in BTC and Ripple establishes trust with nodes as do
web-sites that allow you in and ban you if your start DDOSing them or not doing as you are told. Fantastic
tool trust is and is even used by network switches. Full nodes will need a registration ID and Coordinators will
deal with bad boys so again I say goodbye 51% attack bullshit

[QuestionAuthority]

I can’t wait to watch the great blockchain prize fight that’s going to happen between Ripple and Lightning networks.

Ripple uses blockchain technology, has its own token (XRP) and can be used to verify any type of transfer including existing banking transfers. Ripple has the support of big banking (like American Express, RBC, Westpac and The Bank of Tokyo) and can speed up existing transfer methods to keep current banking in power.

Lightning does not have its own blockchain technology but instead is a scripting language (special run-time environment that automates the execution of tasks), it requires the bitcoin blockchain (or some other blockchain) to survive but it does not use a blockchain for transactions. It only uses a blockchain for final proofing. Because of that is does not have its own token. It also does not have the support of current banking systems and has no large corporate sponsors with a vested interest in making it work. The major plus of lightning is if bitcoin fails or falters with the click of a keyboard it can use some other blockchain as its “enforcement” system. The downside is that major banking will likely never accept it a a payment system.

[maxxdxx]

People said the exact same thing about SegWit yet here we are. You won't see wide usage of SegWit or LN until 2021 at the absolute earliest. Forget crypto for tonight guys happy new year!

[Anti-Cen]

People said the exact same thing about SegWit yet here we are. You won't see wide usage of SegWit or LN until 2021 at the absolute earliest. Forget crypto for tonight guys happy new year!

Yes have a good one and bonk/drink the new year in as is the tradition

[gentlemand]

People shouting about alt migration need to look beyond the end of their noses. As users the people who are around right now don't count for anything. The ones that do count are the tens and hundreds of millions to come in the future. They're the ones who might have fully functioning and smoothed out lightning networks to waltz straight into.

In the meantime the people here who went all in on Rapecoin because it has lower fees will be deservedly lying groaning at the side of the highway of history.

Core can be penises. They also have proper vision that extends beyond the next alt pump. That's why they're still at the tip of the spear and that's why they're resisting the people offering instant cures that could fuck everything up in the near future.

[icanscript]

We are trying to predict the future of the bitcoin and the lightning network. But the reality will become clear within a month.
Congratulations on the new year 2018!

[Karakyli]

So far, the network of lightning - this is the most acceptable solution to the problem of eliminating bitcoins and generally a crisis of confidence in bitcoin. However, it's bad that this project does not come from the bitcoin development team. In addition, for mass implementation of lightning network, it is necessary to adapt wallets to it, and this takes time.

[Alns]

It really needs to get implemented right now, the fees are pretty high, they are not as high as they were before.. but they are still high compared to what they were a month ago.
When do you think that it is going to be on the main blockchain? It has been on development for more than months right now, and the dev's have changed a lot of times, how do we know if this is going to be a good change?
I dont know, but it was just a bitreffil payment and i do not trust in that at all.

We'll see soon.

[streetlight]

From what I have heard, there are tons of Lightning Network Nodes already. I think there are close to or possible over 1,000 now around thw world. I really hope it works out because fees need to go lower.

I just tried sending Bitcoin since fees are down, but they are still too high and I don't want to spend that much percentage just to send money. Hope they go down really soon when LN is more popular in 2018.

[muncuss]

Oh i see, LN isn't implemented yet in other wallet? I want to send 10k satoshi with 0 fee
Good news, of course

[DARKANGEL6415]

This is the innovation that i have been waiting for some time. This will reduce all that back log of transactions and the fee i seen on there of zero wont be long lasting i think. The reason i say that is because if we have 0 fees what will stop people from spamming transactions of letfs say 25 cents just because there is no transaction fees.

[fatalbert]

Humans:

I'm for mom and pop stores.


You leave, They go to Walmart and vote with their pocket book.

This is the past, present and future.

Ripple wins as currency, it's free to send.

When want to be anonymous you use 1 of the 100's of untraceable alt-coins.

This isn't very hard.

BTC is going to fail.

Hey, I'm for the movement, F- Gov's etc. But BTC isn't a currency...by its own choice. It's for high value transaction and store of value. Well, a better high value transaction coin will come along so there goes that. Store of value only option left. I bet if the 1st leaves, the 2nd will never be.

[CrazeCoinz]

is this the savior of bitcoin? well let's hope that this will be implemented soon in higher scale and solved the problem in transactions.

[wooch4aeye]

Sup guys!

I think this is a very important piece of info as we all kinda doomed bitcoin, but this might be a breakthrough.

The lightening network is a technology basically adds a layer of tech that can be a scaling solution for bitcoin, its supposed to prevent the high fees and slow transactions, with the same level of security.

A few days ago the first payment using the lightening network was successful, it was made to pay a phone bill.

The payment was INSTANT, and the fees were ZERO.

Here's the full article - https://www.coindesk.com/payment-provider-bitrefill-runs-successful-lightning-transaction-test/


Bottom line - the lightening network could solve most of the problems with bitcoin - if it does, its a huge step forward in terms of bitcoins scalability, meaning itll be easier to get mass adoption and use BTC for day-to-day transactions, and generally will be great news for the whole crypto section.

great news but Lightening Network  is long term solve and need long time to be full supported by the network.
we need fast solve for this problem

[Spendulus]

That's positive news, but still not enough to cheer the market back up. I don't want to sound negative but even when Lightening Network is fully implemented, it'll be too late for bitcoin to win all the investors who already moved to support new cryptos. New cryptos are implementing features that are missing from bitcoin such as anonymity and private transactions. Bitcoin is already outdated. I'm not saying that bitcoin will die. I'm sure bitcoin will stay forever however, it'll slow down gradually until another coin takes its place as the main crypto-currency.

This really is not true. Various features / options can be implemented in the basic code, such as what we call for convenience "Bitcoin Core." Or it's equivalent for alt coins.

But the presence or absence of those features has no relation to what features may be put on another layer. And that 2nd or even 3rd layer is required for exponential network growth.

For example, can you conceive of a layer on top of bitcoin in which fully anonymous transactions were possible? There'd be a point of exit from the blockchain and a point of entry back to it, and that's all the info that would be available.

What this means is that "features" in an alt coin does not imply it is "more advanced or superior" to bitcoin. Not in the least.

[Tenderino]

What I have to do to use this lightening network? Last time I wanted to send bitcoin it asked for $15 fees and I did not send it, because I typically send smaller amounts and how is it possible that I have to pay higher fees like some payment processors charge?

Hopefully this new network will solve the issues.

[SupportBitcoin]

That is amazing news! Indeed one of the downfalls of Bitcoin is the transaction fees and time. If it can truly become instant and with low to no fees, a HUGE step in the right direction. Then, I really don't see how Bitcoin doesn't overtake fiat in the future. The possiblities are endless at that point.

[Indrawan77]

This is the news that everyone is waiting for, bitcoin users already facing this problem for a long time and finally there is an solution, hopefully this can be implemented soon and people can start to used it, I believe this things could make bitcoin dominating againand make people want to use bitcoin for transaction

[Anti-Cen]

Oh i see, LN isn't implemented yet in other wallet? I want to send 10k satoshi with 0 fee
Good news, of course

Yes months away from getting LN up and running and they had years to see this coming
so one must assume they wanted things to pan out like this and then we will have to wait
for wallets to work with LN

Too little, too late and the market is speaking but as a quick fix they could try a simple line of code for now

Public static money MaxFee=1.50 // Stop ripping us off miners and leave because not enough cream for 20,000 of you on this cake

[Anti-Cen]

This is the news that everyone is waiting for, bitcoin users already facing this problem for a long time and finally there is an solution, hopefully this can be implemented soon and people can start to used it, I believe this things could make bitcoin dominating againand make people want to use bitcoin for transaction

You forget that rip-off tx fees has lead to a break down in trust so what happens when the LN hubs are exposed
for what they are as banks if we stop playing with words and they conspire with miners to stitch us up even more.

Things are not happy in Crypto-land and we did not change the rules.

[HeRetiK]

That's positive news, but still not enough to cheer the market back up. I don't want to sound negative but even when Lightening Network is fully implemented, it'll be too late for bitcoin to win all the investors who already moved to support new cryptos. New cryptos are implementing features that are missing from bitcoin such as anonymity and private transactions. Bitcoin is already outdated. I'm not saying that bitcoin will die. I'm sure bitcoin will stay forever however, it'll slow down gradually until another coin takes its place as the main crypto-currency.

I think this is an overestimation of how quickly people are willing to switch from one technology or investment to another. If LN fails to deliver or takes another 2-3 years for deployment, then we're likely to see a major shift in userbase. But not after 1 year of scaling issues after a track record of running flawlessly for 9 years. Additionally few people seem to care about true anonymity, that is assuming the current anonymity approaches are viable and solid in the first place.

[...]

For example, can you conceive of a layer on top of bitcoin in which fully anonymous transactions were possible? There'd be a point of exit from the blockchain and a point of entry back to it, and that's all the info that would be available.

[...]

Actually that's pretty much what LN is doing. LN transactions are only visible to the involved parties, the nodes inbetween know nothing about the transactions they route. I'm not sure whether LN can provide full anonymity but it definitely will improve privacy.

[olubams]

That's positive news, but still not enough to cheer the market back up. I don't want to sound negative but even when Lightening Network is fully implemented, it'll be too late for bitcoin to win all the investors who already moved to support new cryptos. New cryptos are implementing features that are missing from bitcoin such as anonymity and private transactions. Bitcoin is already outdated. I'm not saying that bitcoin will die. I'm sure bitcoin will stay forever however, it'll slow down gradually until another coin takes its place as the main crypto-currency.

I think this is an overestimation of how quickly people are willing to switch from one technology or investment to another. If LN fails to deliver or takes another 2-3 years for deployment, then we're likely to see a major shift in userbase. But not after 1 year of scaling issues after a track record of running flawlessly for 9 years. Additionally few people seem to care about true anonymity, that is assuming the current anonymity approaches are viable and solid in the first place.

[...]

For example, can you conceive of a layer on top of bitcoin in which fully anonymous transactions were possible? There'd be a point of exit from the blockchain and a point of entry back to it, and that's all the info that would be available.

[...]

Actually that's pretty much what LN is doing. LN transactions are only visible to the involved parties, the nodes inbetween know nothing about the transactions they route. I'm not sure whether LN can provide full anonymity but it definitely will improve privacy.

When I read the news I was equally happy and waiting it should be something not too difficult to be rolled out to many or maybe some explanations is needed on it. The way this upgrade are done, I expect that it should be updated into the system automatically just like when you update an app on google play store rather than all this process that you are trying to explain. If this is anything to go by, it then means that the time to enjoy the benefit of this laudable achievement is not close by.

[Turkish88]

I hope this news not a fake, time to buy bitcoins !

[athanz88]

Sup guys!

I think this is a very important piece of info as we all kinda doomed bitcoin, but this might be a breakthrough.

The lightening network is a technology basically adds a layer of tech that can be a scaling solution for bitcoin, its supposed to prevent the high fees and slow transactions, with the same level of security.

A few days ago the first payment using the lightening network was successful, it was made to pay a phone bill.

The payment was INSTANT, and the fees were ZERO.

Here's the full article - https://www.coindesk.com/payment-provider-bitrefill-runs-successful-lightning-transaction-test/


Bottom line - the lightening network could solve most of the problems with bitcoin - if it does, its a huge step forward in terms of bitcoins scalability, meaning itll be easier to get mass adoption and use BTC for day-to-day transactions, and generally will be great news for the whole crypto section.

I have read this positive news from my google apps.
Indeed this is a great technology to eliminate all the issues of bitcoin that we have right now. High transfer fees, slow transaction, are now really a big issues for bitcoin as people used it to against and make bitcoin looks bad. And then comes this technology.
I hope this LN can be implemented as fast as it can on the bitcoin network. But with this implementation, i guess there will be new problem we may face, like maybe wallets will make a fixed fees to do transaction, and maybe like lower earnings for miner because we dont need to pay for the transaction again. I dont know. I hope it can solve the problem.

[BitcoinHodler]

Oh i see, LN isn't implemented yet in other wallet? I want to send 10k satoshi with 0 fee
Good news, of course

Yes months away from getting LN up and running and they had years to see this coming so one must assume they wanted things to pan out like this and then we will have to wait for wallets to work with LN

Too little, too late and the market is speaking but as a quick fix they could try a simple line of code for now

LN may have not needed SegWit but everything that it is offering including the paramount security of it is based on SegWit. and we got it less than 6 months ago. you can not expect full scale adoption of something like that in less than 6 months.

Public static money MaxFee=1.50 // Stop ripping us off miners and leave because not enough cream for 20,000 of you on this cake

feel free to fork bitcoin and change this rule (this can be considered consensus rule) and see how many will follow your chain. if you can get enough people to switch then your chain will be bitcoin.

[dawoodkhan97]

I believe this is a great step towards solving the scalability issues
which we've been having for quite some time now.

It still has to be tested thoroughly before implementing it but if
it does process instant and low fee transactions then nothing would
stop bitcoin and may even have mass adoption as I read that using
the lighting network, it can process millions of transactions/second.
This is huge! Even Visa can only process 50k transactions at max.

[hv_]

Cross-chain atomic swaps will help whatever cryptocurrency becomes the predominate one. Not just bitcoin. Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja are going to become famously wealthy regardless of which crypto wins. Congrats!

Why should anybody use this if Bitcoin (Cash) will solve this in a single cheap cash coin?

[krisnt80]

Finally some good new, but i were talking with some friends and they told me that this might be a solution if all implement those, but we talked as well about do transaction offchain wich can cause some damage or issue, im not pretty sure how it works, but knowing it will reduce the insane fees its already a good new to bitcoin.

[Man21]

Its good information. Good news mate.
One thing that i still not understand, how it can make bitcoin more faster in transaction and zero fee? If zero fee i think its not possible since the miners will not do our transaction. If you can give me the detail maybe i will more understand. But at least this is good news.

[HeRetiK]

Cross-chain atomic swaps will help whatever cryptocurrency becomes the predominate one. Not just bitcoin. Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja are going to become famously wealthy regardless of which crypto wins. Congrats!

Why should anybody use this if Bitcoin (Cash) will solve this in a single cheap cash coin?

There will always be demand for alts, regardless of which Bitcoin hardfork becomes the dominant one. And as long as there's a demand for alts, there will be a use case for cross-chain atomic swaps.

Worst case it's just people swapping speculative assets around, best case it enables decentralized purchasing of utility tokens, whichever they may be in the future.

[CodyAlfaridzi]

Yeah, I have seen the video too. It was literally lightning fast! Can't wait for it to be fully developed and got integrated in a user-friendly software. Guess it'll take more time eh? I don't think it'll be available until 2020. An implementation like this took a long time before officially released to major users. Even Segwit took years to develop and even after implemented a lot of users are still not using it.

[sirkings0003]

Sup guys!

I think this is a very important piece of info as we all kinda doomed bitcoin, but this might be a breakthrough.

The lightening network is a technology basically adds a layer of tech that can be a scaling solution for bitcoin, its supposed to prevent the high fees and slow transactions, with the same level of security.

A few days ago the first payment using the lightening network was successful, it was made to pay a phone bill.

The payment was INSTANT, and the fees were ZERO.

Here's the full article - https://www.coindesk.com/payment-provider-bitrefill-runs-successful-lightning-transaction-test/


Bottom line - the lightening network could solve most of the problems with bitcoin - if it does, its a huge step forward in terms of bitcoins scalability, meaning itll be easier to get mass adoption and use BTC for day-to-day transactions, and generally will be great news for the whole crypto section.

Woww. If this is can be applied to the main bitcoin framework to improve the scaling issues presently being experienced in bitcoin, then it would be a very big and cheering news for the community.

[QuestionAuthority]

Cross-chain atomic swaps will help whatever cryptocurrency becomes the predominate one. Not just bitcoin. Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja are going to become famously wealthy regardless of which crypto wins. Congrats!

Why should anybody use this if Bitcoin (Cash) will solve this in a single cheap cash coin?

Do you know that Lightning Network and Ripple were dating? They fucked and made a gay son named Lightning Ripple McQueen.




The above is more likely than BCH becoming anything more than another one of Roger Ver’s perverted attempts to control bitcoin. Anybody that supports bcash is clueless.

[Woodies]

To da mooon 

[adiksau0414]

Let's cheers to that. Thats a positive news for all of us. We might experiencing sad moment because of bitcoin plunging. We still have this news that will benefit all of us. As of the bitcoin increase in these recent year, the transaction fee is really a shock (not advisable to withdraw or transfer small amount of bitcoin, the fee is much higher that what you supposed to withdraw). As of now, these news is one of the positive vibes i have in this 2018. (celebrating).

[hv_]

Cross-chain atomic swaps will help whatever cryptocurrency becomes the predominate one. Not just bitcoin. Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja are going to become famously wealthy regardless of which crypto wins. Congrats!

Why should anybody use this if Bitcoin (Cash) will solve this in a single cheap cash coin?

Do you know that Lightning Network and Ripple were dating? They fucked and made a gay son named Lightning Ripple McQueen.




The above is more likely than BCH becoming anything more than another one of Roger Ver’s perverted attempts to control bitcoin. Anybody that supports bcash is clueless.

If you'd ve said Jihan and CSW, I could not say much, but Roger?

Anyway, crypto makes me lookin clueless every day.

 

[mroth7684]

zero fee. this is the most I like when you ripple. fee very small per transaction. like you dont care about it. hope bitcoin can do that

[Anti-Cen]

But not after 1 year of scaling issues after a track record of running flawlessly for 9 years.

Well that's no true at all and BTC does not scale and they did not need to wait for the wheels
to start falling off it before rushing to fix it.

it said "Near virtually free transactions" on the box so it should have had a maximum
amount of fees that would be charged and it is not decentralized when ten big miners
account for 90% of all transactions.

We can debate if Hubs in LN are really banks but your above comment is not
worth debating IMHO

[fishbonez11]

This is amazing! And indeed a good news! Woth this fast transfers with low or zero transaction fee, people will return to bitcoin and believe again. More people would buy bitcoin, bitcoin price would be high. More bicoin users also mean that more connectivity of people around the globe for fund transfers.

[HeRetiK]

But not after 1 year of scaling issues after a track record of running flawlessly for 9 years.

Well that's no true at all and BTC does not scale and they did not need to wait for the wheels
to start falling off it before rushing to fix it.

SegWit and LN implementation began long before blocks were even close to full.

Please expand on which problems you are referring too that occured before BTC started running at capacity.

it said "Near virtually free transactions" on the box so it should have had a maximum
amount of fees that would be charged and it is not decentralized when ten big miners
account for 90% of all transactions.

Setting a maximum price on a scarce resource (ie. blockspace) never ends well.

Kindly provide me with an alt coin example that is significantly more decentralized than BTC.

[fulmetal08larz]

This is truly a remarkable and one step forward for bitcoin. The question now is "When will it be fully developed and implemented?". Surely, if this milestone has been achieved, there will be more investors that will get attracted to bitcoin. Happy New Year everyone!

[btcwish1]

If this really works then btc price will sky rocket.. but i think it is not 100% complete yet..

[cybersofts]

Excellent news!
Once started to be implemented it will send down shity altcoins where they belong.

Indeed, with the Lightening Network update fully working - we are back in the game, baby! Very soon bitcoin will be shooting to the moon again. Where are the "bitcoin prophets" you should start your new predictions for bitcoin price of the year 2018.

[Chris314]

It's indeed a good news, that bitcoin transaction can be fast and cheap. Now we need to have it implemented on every transaction to really push bitcoin up from where it is now. It's a first step, but there's still work to be done.

[Anti-Cen]

SegWit and LN implementation began long before blocks were even close to full.

How many fixes do you need in a bug free program.

Please expand on which problems you are referring too that occured before BTC started running at capacity.

Well none i guess if we ignore current circumstances, hack and lost coins we can all blame on users or
bad designs of wallets as we tweak core BTC so what version of BTC we using now ? 0.15.1 is it 

Setting a maximum price on a scarce resource (ie. blockspace) never ends well.

Why have they tried it and this "scarce resource" you call it is just an illusion but if you think that
bits and bytes are worth so much then i can always sell you a 64gb pen drive for lets say
$500,000.00 . Boy the price of data was not that high even when it cost a years wages to
buy a Winchester 2mg hard drive and these things even came in a teak wooden box.

Kindly provide me with an alt coin example that is significantly more decentralized than BTC.

Is that Pre LN or post because hubs are a step down this road not that I am saying that's such a bad thing
but your arguments for not using coordinators is none founded regardless of how I look at it and yes a car
might be theft proof but it's no good if it becomes too heavy to move is it now.

I guess i would have to say none to be honest because they are all running away from it and Mining and PoW and
block-chain when it's not a clone or fork so does that not tell you something might be a little bit wrong.

My way of fixing this mess in BTC would never get approved because too many people are making too much
money and i've worked for banks, loan sharks, broker, and something like Walmarts on-line shopping plus
stuff I cannot discus and you won't find me walking around some university campus with my head stuck
in academia so maybe that is why I am not "praising the lord" with you all

[Anti-Cen]

It's indeed a good news, that bitcoin transaction can be fast and cheap. Now we need to have it implemented on every transaction to really push bitcoin up from where it is now. It's a first step, but there's still work to be done.

You are wrong and on top of transaction fees you will be getting hub fees, these are banks in plain English

If you want to set up a channel with your local Coffey shop and buy a drink a day for the next year then it
will work for you but when you settle up you are back to having to pay transaction fees as the channel get closed.

in the real world you want to send anything from $0.10 to lets say $50 to many people you will only ever buy from
once in your life so you will be worse off, not better

Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpfvhiqFw7A

See Brian in the middle, hes a bank or hub as they call them and you could keep a channel open with him
for months and lets him link to other hubs/banks in order to relay micro transactions but he then has running
costs to keep his network of channels open and ends up paying a transactions fee when ever a channel get closed
and written to the block-chain.

Who do you think Brian is going to pass these costs on to if not you ?

What will happen if Bob and Alice does not have nodes that are too small to connect and talk with each other ?

Do you think we end up with central bank type hubs that connect the small hubs to each other by interconnecting with
other central banks and will they not change the small hubs for the pleasure and this then get past to you

Bob >>>>> Brain <><><><><>Big Bob <><><><><>Big Goldman<><><><>Paul<<<<<<Alice
Transaction  count       
          5                      200                             50,000                               2,000                 1

Alice gets her $100 and closes the channel with Paul who was charging her $1 a day for the service
because she is not a crypto-freak, it's all her fault she get hit with $51 in costs because she does not
know how to use the system.

Watch it again and see how the wool is being pulled over your eyes







 

 

[HeRetiK]

SegWit and LN implementation began long before blocks were even close to full.

How many fixes do you need in a bug free program.

Not sure what you are trying to say. Software development is a continuous process and ongoing updates are expected.

Please expand on which problems you are referring too that occured before BTC started running at capacity.

Well none i guess if we ignore current circumstances, hack and lost coins we can all blame on users or
bad designs of wallets as we tweak core BTC so what version of BTC we using now ? 0.15.1 is it 

The loss of private keys has nothing to do with Bitcoin the network. Do you blame the internet whenever credit card info gets stolen from corporate databases?

Setting a maximum price on a scarce resource (ie. blockspace) never ends well.

Why have they tried it and this "scarce resource" you call it is just an illusion but if you think that
bits and bytes are worth so much then i can always sell you a 64gb pen drive for lets say
$500,000.00 . Boy the price of data was not that high even when it cost a years wages to
buy a Winchester 2mg hard drive and these things even came in a teak wooden box.

One point that keeps popping up in your posts is how resource intensive it is to replicate the blockchain across thousands of nodes -- that's exactly why blockspace is a scarce resource and should be treated as such.

Kindly provide me with an alt coin example that is significantly more decentralized than BTC.

Is that Pre LN or post

Pre LN. But doesn't make much of a difference as far as decentralization is concerned.

because hubs are a step down this road

[citation needed]

not that I am saying that's such a bad thing

It would be a bad thing, if it were the case.

but your arguments for not using coordinators is none founded regardless of how I look at it

Maybe we're talking about different things. If you can give me a concrete example of an alt that uses "coordinators" in the sense that you had in mind I'll gladly reconsider my position.

and yes a car
might be theft proof but it's no good if it becomes too heavy to move is it now.

We're not talking about cars though.

I guess i would have to say none to be honest because they are all running away from it and Mining and PoW and
block-chain when it's not a clone or fork so does that not tell you something might be a little bit wrong.

Not sure you what you are trying to stay. You can compare PoW to other consensus mechanisms and still argue about centralization.

My way of fixing this mess in BTC would never get approved because too many people are making too much
money

Create an alt then. Write either a white paper or protocol specs and find yourself some devs to work with.

and i've worked for banks, loan sharks, broker, and something like Walmarts on-line shopping plus
stuff I cannot discus

Throwing credentials around won't help your argument. Some of the worst devs I've ever worked with claimed the same. Similar fields too. Different story though.

and you won't find me walking around some university campus with my head stuck
in academia so maybe that is why I am not "praising the lord" with you all

Maybe you should stick your head in academia. Just a little. Not that I ever did until late in the game, but it helps expand your toolset.

(Civil discussion has little to do with "praising the lord" by the way. This statement comes across as a baseless, hand-wavy dismissal of anything that challenges your way of thinking to be honest.)

---

So, where were we? Ah yes.

"PRAISE THE LORD!"

I mean... who else has played around with testnet LN so far?

I finally came around trying Eclair and the HTLC.me web wallet to see Lightning in action and I must admit it still feels incomplete. Which is expected, of course, but makes me slightly wary of how long it will take until we see the final product. Apart from what seems to be occasional connectivity issues it works like a breeze though. Tried microtransactions by unlocking articles on yalls.org. Instant and low-fee, just like in the olden days <3

[Hateculd75]

i dont know more about Lightening Network i read about them and from many sources that i read about them i can say
with Lightening Network or any other solution we need to send bitcoin with low fee and fast confirmed.
The fees are very high so I hope they do more to make the network see the light quickly so that we can get more confirmations and cheap fees.
hope developers find and apply solution fast because i stop using bitcoin for this problem

[QuestionAuthority]

I know many of you think bitcoin is money that is rising in value because lots of people are using it to make their daily purchases. That’s simply not true. Bitcoin is rising in value because the big bad rich boys of bitcoin are manipulating the market to make a shit ton of money by taking it from the simpletons that are buying .05btc and hoping to be a millionaire from that someday.

Are the “real users” of bitcoin going to be able to manipulate the market faster with Lightning? Are these rich “real users” going to be able to day trade even faster making bitcoin even more volatile? The bitcoin blockchain at that point will become little more than a reconciliation ledger. It will take a while for the blockchain to catch up with enormously fast day trading. Will that increase in speed cause some day traders to lose money? Will trading speed wipe out some of the few big bad rich boys and return bitcoin back to the people? Will super speed trading increase the ability to arbitrage between exchanges?

I think Lightning is going to make bitcoin a super forex trading wet dream on crack. This shit is going to be fun to watch.

[londonglory]

Would love to see this implemented, and it would surely increase the price.

[KwizatzHaderach]

Great news for the community. Looking forward to no or lower fees.
Should bump up the price in the near term.