How will Lightning Network be encouraged to use?

[Spendulus]

How may it be rapidly established?

Things seem to mover very slowly, look at segwit adoption.

Some kind of incentives at the start?

[1713948047]

1713948047

[1713948047]

1713948047

[1713948047]

1713948047

[piotr_n]

It's pretty obvious.

Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?

It is going to be encouraged by your greed.

[lionelho]

In order to run smoothly, there need several big players in the network, acting like a hub to connect the individuals. The big player needs to have enough funds as the payment channels require to lock the currency. That needs a long time to establish.

[piotr_n]

I think the bigger problem is the lack of software, rather than the funds of the big players.
Big players don't really need cheap transaction - it's the small players that need them.

The problem is that everyone who's been involved with bitcoin long enough, today has enough dosh to not needing to work anymore.
So whoever is going to make this Lightning Network software, likely needs to learn first.

[Wind_FURY]

It's pretty obvious.

Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?

It is going to be encouraged by your greed.

Plus wallet software developers like Electrum should add a "Lightning send" capability to make it easier for users who want cheaper and faster transactions. I also believe that we should start campaigning for gambling sites and wallet providers to start using Segwit, then the exchanges next.

Segwit is the introduction to the Lightning Network. It should be most used in casinos, exchanges and other services where there are lots of microtransactions.

[btcton]

I think the bigger problem is the lack of software, rather than the funds of the big players.
Big players don't really need cheap transaction - it's the small players that need them.

The problem is that everyone who's been involved with bitcoin long enough, today has enough dosh to not needing to work anymore.
So whoever is going to make this Lightning Network software, likely needs to learn first.

That statement is of my concern as well. In fact, we have seen something similar happen with Coinbase: they seem to be refusing to use SegWit addresses and transactions even when they would be much cheaper in fees and even when they have already had more than enough time to implement them into their infrastructure. I could see this benefiting them when trying to appeal to the masses by stating that their transactions between Coinbase users incur no fees. By doing this, they can expand their customer base even further which they would like to do in order to profit even more. As a result, they would not likely support any changes that would mean on-chain transaction fees go down. It would, subsequently, screw over anyone else who uses the network by forcing them into paying higher fees which would then further encourage them to jump ship into Coinbase, and then it starts spiraling out of control. It could be quite bad if they do get an even bigger hold of the people, bitcoins, and transactions than they currently have. They don't need to adopt the Lightning Network for themselves; in fact, they don't want to because the ones who really need it are the rest of us.

[bob123]

It's pretty obvious.
Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?
It is going to be encouraged by your greed.

Unfortunately this won't work this way.
Look at segwit. SegWit got introduced in July (i think). And still the amount of segwit transactions hovers around 10% (http://segwit.party/charts/#).

Thats quite sad. Especially if you think about the pros / cons.
Pros: Lower fees, Higher rate of TX/s the network is capable of performing, 1st step towards Lightning network, ...
Cons: I'm not aware of any cons regarding segwit.
But still... segwit is far far away from being adopted by the current userbase.

In my opinion, to adopt the lightning network correctly, there are 2 crucial point:
1) Services with a bit userbase need to implement it (exchanges, merchants, gambling sites, ..)
2) There has to be a 1-click- wallet to be able to connect to a payment channel and use it for payments.

Especially the second point is crucial for mass adoption.
Simple wallet, fancy UI, nice functionality and not overwhelming is what people need as a wallet.

[HeRetiK]

That statement is of my concern as well. In fact, we have seen something similar happen with Coinbase: they seem to be refusing to use SegWit addresses and transactions even when they would be much cheaper in fees and even when they have already had more than enough time to implement them into their infrastructure. [...]

Apparently Coinbase is not even batching their transactions yet. Given Coinbase's transaction volume, this alone would already save a ton of blockspace. Apparently transaction fees don't hurt their bottom line, as they can simply roll that cost over to their customers. And as long as transaction fees don't hurt their bottom line, reducing them won't be much of a priority. Coinbase only cares about people buying bitcoin, not using them. A picture book example of misaligned incentives, unfortunately.

My biggest hope in regards to kickstarting LN adoption is currently merchants and the likes of BitPay. BitPay has nothing to gain from people buying Bitcoin unless they actually use them. So in this case the incentives should be aligned in LN's favor.

[piotr_n]

It's pretty obvious.
Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?
It is going to be encouraged by your greed.

Unfortunately this won't work this way.
Look at segwit. SegWit got introduced in July (i think). And still the amount of segwit transactions hovers around 10% (http://segwit.party/charts/#).

Because the most commonly used wallets don't really suport it yet, so most people don't have choice as they are not tech savvy and can't do command line.

Even people who made Segwit in the first place have not really released the segwit functionality for the wallet they make.
So what do you expect from others?

This is not unusual. If you ever worked in a big organisation, you know the release cycle (preceded by design, development and testing) of such a feature would take probably about a year.
The Lightning Networks are surely much more complex and will take far more time to release than the segwit payments - but it's gonna happen for sure, as there is money to save and therefore to make.

[Spendulus]

It's pretty obvious.
Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?
It is going to be encouraged by your greed.

Unfortunately this won't work this way.
Look at segwit. SegWit got introduced in July (i think). And still the amount of segwit transactions hovers around 10% (http://segwit.party/charts/#).

Because the most commonly used wallets don't really suport it yet, so most people don't have choice as they are not tech savvy and can't do command line.

Even people who made Segwit in the first place have not really released the segwit functionality for the wallet they make.
So what do you expect from others?

This is not unusual. If you ever worked in a big organisation, you know the release cycle (preceded by design, development and testing) of such a feature would take probably about a year.
The Lightning Networks are surely much more complex and will take far more time to release than the segwit payments - but it's gonna happen for sure, as there is money to save and therefore to make.

Can you think of an incentive for users to move in the direction of LN?

[piotr_n]

Can you think of an incentive for users to move in the direction of LN?

I already said it: greed.

Why would a user pay $20 fee, if he can pay much less?

Obviously the companies who make their money on small transactions are going to enable that, because nobody is going to use them otherwise and they will go out of business.

It's inevitable.

[HeRetiK]

Can you think of an incentive for users to move in the direction of LN?

I already said it: greed.

Why would a user pay $20 fee, if he can pay much less?

Obviously the companies who make their money on small transactions are going to enable that, because nobody is going to use them otherwise and they will go out of business.

It's inevitable.

Greed is a bit of a strong word here, but the main incentive is definitely going to be a savings in transaction fees. After all cheap transactions -- in terms of blocksize space and consequently transaction fees -- is why LN is being implemented in the first place.

Still, ease of use for the average consumer and ease of integration for companies will also play a major factor. It's the main factor that worries me about the future speed of LN adaption. There's only one way to find out though.

[piotr_n]

Still, ease of use for the average consumer and ease of integration for companies will also play a major factor. It's the main factor that worries me about the future speed of LN adaption. There's only one way to find out though.

People learn quickly.

I remember years ago when Gavin Andresen was the famous Bitcoin Chief Scientist, he was always saying that in order for Bitcoin to succeed, the wallet's interface needs to be so simple that even his granny could use it.
Since then the wallet's interface hasn't changed, but we can say that Bitcoin has succeeded pretty much.

People can learn to handle new staff - especially when there is a profit involved.
They will have to learn to handle the payment channels. And they will.

[COTInetwork]

Well I think everyone is waiting for someone or on a group to take this up a notch and deliver some way for the entire miner community to adopt it. Give them good enough reason to do so. Nobody likes change. Naturally this goes against the human mind. However we must move forward.

[piotr_n]

Well I think everyone is waiting for someone or on a group to take this up a notch and deliver some way for the entire miner community to adopt it.

Fortunately this doesn't need any further cooperation from the miner community.

Otherwise I'd be really concerned

[Mcfee lee]

Lighting network is the solution that can kill bch I think

[btcton]

1. Promoting LN advantage compared with on-chain transaction.
2. Availability of user-friendly LN software, at least should be as friendly as Electrum.
3. LN Support and adoption from exchange/services/business.

I am not familiar with how wallet software would be using the Lightning Network. I thought the Lightning Network was mostly used for bigger businesses who have to perform many transactions that could open and close channels with these transactions in them; am I misunderstanding? I could see user wallets using the channels provided by others, but I do not see how we would be able to take advantage of it on our own without the help of a bigger party. As you say, support and adoption from exchanges/services/businesses should help.

[HeRetiK]

1. Promoting LN advantage compared with on-chain transaction.
2. Availability of user-friendly LN software, at least should be as friendly as Electrum.
3. LN Support and adoption from exchange/services/business.

I am not familiar with how wallet software would be using the Lightning Network. I thought the Lightning Network was mostly used for bigger businesses who have to perform many transactions that could open and close channels with these transactions in them; am I misunderstanding? I could see user wallets using the channels provided by others, but I do not see how we would be able to take advantage of it on our own without the help of a bigger party. As you say, support and adoption from exchanges/services/businesses should help.

Lightning Network aims to be used by both consumers and businesses. The premise being that bi-directional payment channels can be used to create a network of nodes -- ie. the lightning network -- which enables every connected participant to transact with everyone else. That is, regardless of whether they have a direct channel running or are connected indirectly via a route across the lightning network.

Check out some of the testnet lightning wallets and applications for a first glimpse:

1) HTLC.me web wallet ( https://htlc.me/ )
2) Eclair testnet android wallet ( Google Play Store )
3) Lightning Desktop App ( https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-app/releases )
4) yalls.org for spending testnet microtransactions ( https://yalls.org/ )

It's still rough around the edges though.

[Ucy]

I think the bigger problem is the lack of software, rather than the funds of the big players.
Big players don't really need cheap transaction - it's the small players that need them.

The problem is that everyone who's been involved with bitcoin long enough, today has enough dosh to not needing to work anymore
So whoever is going to make this Lightning Network software, likely needs to learn first.

Interesting point there. But I have my doubts though. MOST early adopters (2009— 2011 adopters ) aren't in for the money. They would most likely continue making stuff.
Life without SciTechnology would be very boring and depressing to them.

[Wind_FURY]

It's pretty obvious.
Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?
It is going to be encouraged by your greed.

Unfortunately this won't work this way.
Look at segwit. SegWit got introduced in July (i think). And still the amount of segwit transactions hovers around 10% (http://segwit.party/charts/#).

Thats quite sad. Especially if you think about the pros / cons.
Pros: Lower fees, Higher rate of TX/s the network is capable of performing, 1st step towards Lightning network, ...
Cons: I'm not aware of any cons regarding segwit.
But still... segwit is far far away from being adopted by the current userbase.

It makes you think what the agenda of those companies who signed the NYA are. Were they really calling for a scaling solution or were they trying to kick the Core developers out?

I believe the "scaling debate" was about politics and the Bitcoin oligarchy wanted to kick out the Core developers.

[maxxdxx]

Lightning Network has been in development for a long time and it's currently running on the testnet and mainnet (both are not 100% perfect yet). More time is needed to fix bugs and make nice clients.

[Anti-Cen]

I think the bigger problem is the lack of software, rather than the funds of the big players.
Big players don't really need cheap transaction - it's the small players that need them.

The problem is that everyone who's been involved with bitcoin long enough, today has enough dosh to not needing to work anymore.
So whoever is going to make this Lightning Network software, likely needs to learn first.

Yes agree

Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?

Agree if your talking about using another type of alt-coin and you have much respect from me
but Lightning does not reduce fees much for normal use even if we get wallets that can use it
in say six months time and wait longer for Exodus or Jaxx to adopt it.

Bob does not want to buy a coffee a day from Alice for the next month but wants whats
been selling using BTC from day one, some skunk weed this month and Alice does not want
to hang around doing too many transactions in case the old bill come knocking

Please add hubs/banks into the process because we have already had the arguments about
BTC is only good for sending amounts over $1000 across the wire and now it's going to be
LN is good if you pretend that you don't use real fiat cash when out shopping and everyone
takes Bitcoins and are all connected to major hubs/banks

[Anti-Cen]

Lightning Network has been in development for a long time and it's currently running on the testnet and mainnet (both are not 100% perfect yet). More time is needed to fix bugs and make nice clients.

But Bitcoin had nine years to be perfected and they knew from day one that it would not scale so yes
lets give them more time if they say they need it but for our continued loyal support all they need to do
is add one line of code into Bitcoin core if they somehow forgot to add it before

public static money MaxFee =1.50 // 20,000 miners not needed when 1,000 is more than enough

Yes if market forces and not just a scam can fees up due a badly designed system that is slow then lets see market forces
removing most miners because we don't have that much cream on the cake to share around and CPU-Wars
between more and more miners is only keeping Intel, AMD and big oil rich so work that in to getting one
up on the bankers

[figmentofmyass]

How may it be rapidly established?

Things seem to mover very slowly, look at segwit adoption.

Some kind of incentives at the start?

this is the first obvious answer:

Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?

anyone who uses BTC all the time has been feeling the pain of rising fees. for many people, that's reason enough to have adopted segwit already even though it's not in the core gui yet. lightning can lower fees much more than segwit, so i would expect adoption to be faster too.

past that, there are literally fee incentives built into the system. people sending LN transactions need to pay for routing hops. the nodes that provide those hops compete for fees. of course, these fees will be astronomically cheaper than on-chain fees. but for the first time, ordinary nodes will be compensated merely for propagating transactions.

[pq3eq]

When DEVs plan integrate it?

[figmentofmyass]

When DEVs plan integrate it?

there is no ETA. lightning developers have taken the position that there is "no rush" considering how much value is expected to be stored in payment channels. they are very concerned about ensuring that no funds are lost as a result of using the LN protocol.

having said that, it's pretty widely expected that LN will be usable by the general public sometime this year, likely in a matter of months. the next major step is to complete wallet implementations. we're already seeing lightning transactions on the network; now it's mainly just a matter of releasing the software.

[Valle]

I wonder how a Lightning user interface would look like. Instead a "Send" button there will be "Open channel" button (same fee as just Send button + X bitcoins to deposit into channel) and then "Send via the opened channel" (no fee) and then "Close channel" (same fee as just Send button). Given this complexity and the fact that you have to spend twice as much in fees to send same amount of money as without LN I really wonder how the "greed" would work.

If you say you need big aggregators like Coinbase... Well, why would a user choose the aggregator instead using um... Zelle for example? Maybe only for transnational payments.

[achow101]

there is no ETA. lightning developers have taken the position that there is "no rush" considering how much value is expected to be stored in payment channels. they are very concerned about ensuring that no funds are lost as a result of using the LN protocol.

having said that, it's pretty widely expected that LN will be usable by the general public sometime this year, likely in a matter of months. the next major step is to complete wallet implementations. we're already seeing lightning transactions on the network; now it's mainly just a matter of releasing the software.

It's not like there's an actual "official LN launch" date or anything like that. Rather LN will be "launched" when people feel confident enough in one or more implementations of LN to use it on the main Bitcoin network. In fact, you could consider LN to already be launched as there already are people using LN on the mainnet. Of course those people do so at the risk of their money, but nonetheless, the software mostly works and there are transactions occurring.

I wonder how a Lightning user interface would look like. Instead a "Send" button there will be "Open channel" button (same fee as just Send button + X bitcoins to deposit into channel) and then "Send via the opened channel" (no fee) and then "Close channel" (same fee as just Send button). Given this complexity and the fact that you have to spend twice as much in fees to send same amount of money as without LN I really wonder how the "greed" would work.

It's very likely that it will still just be a "Send" button. Channel management and all that will actually be handled by the software automatically. You put money into your LN wallet, and it will use that to open and close channels automatically. So when you want to send Bitcoin to someone, your LN wallet will have established several channels. It will also determine an optimal route and do everything automatically for you. There's no need for you to manually open and close channels yourself; the software will handle all of that for you.

[amishmanish]

The problem is that everyone who's been involved with bitcoin long enough, today has enough dosh to not needing to work anymore.
So whoever is going to make this Lightning Network software, likely needs to learn first.

The people who were involved from the start are now the patrons probably. The baton has been already passed down as different teams were working on the Lightning Network. This is also a good thing probably because now new developers can start afresh and take control of the project. We probably need another few Satoshi Nakamotos, if he was only an individual.

Also, The Lightning Network software is more or less made already. Its on testnet and main-net. There's even the "Eclair Wallet Testnet" on play store.

[amishmanish]

Check out some of the testnet lightning wallets and applications for a first glimpse:

1) HTLC.me web wallet ( https://htlc.me/ )
2) Eclair testnet android wallet ( Google Play Store )
3) Lightning Desktop App ( https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-app/releases )
4) yalls.org for spending testnet microtransactions ( https://yalls.org/ )

It's still rough around the edges though.

Is there some kind of guide for the eclair testnet wallet? I downloaded it on my phone but have no idea what exactly am i supposed to do with this. Do I get testnet currency from some faucet?

[Carlton Banks]

there is no ETA. lightning developers have taken the position that there is "no rush" considering how much value is expected to be stored in payment channels. they are very concerned about ensuring that no funds are lost as a result of using the LN protocol.

having said that, it's pretty widely expected that LN will be usable by the general public sometime this year, likely in a matter of months. the next major step is to complete wallet implementations. we're already seeing lightning transactions on the network; now it's mainly just a matter of releasing the software.

It's not like there's an actual "official LN launch" date or anything like that. Rather LN will be "launched" when people feel confident enough in one or more implementations of LN to use it on the main Bitcoin network. In fact, you could consider LN to already be launched as there already are people using LN on the mainnet. Of course those people do so at the risk of their money, but nonetheless, the software mostly works and there are transactions occurring.

Could this be the reason there's been an increase in the rate of larger than average kB transactions recently? With ~195 MB of transactions confirmed in the past 24 hours across ~325,000 transactions, that puts the average transaction size at 600 kB (much larger than the 225 kB of a typical transaction).

[HeRetiK]

It's very likely that it will still just be a "Send" button. Channel management and all that will actually be handled by the software automatically. You put money into your LN wallet, and it will use that to open and close channels automatically. So when you want to send Bitcoin to someone, your LN wallet will have established several channels. It will also determine an optimal route and do everything automatically for you. There's no need for you to manually open and close channels yourself; the software will handle all of that for you.

That seems to be the approach that HTLC.me is following. It's fine with testnet coins, but I'm still not sure how to feel about mainnet on-chain transactions taking place without user interaction. I guess in the end people will have multiple implementations to choose from, depending on how much convenience vs control they want.

Check out some of the testnet lightning wallets and applications for a first glimpse:

1) HTLC.me web wallet ( https://htlc.me/ )
2) Eclair testnet android wallet ( Google Play Store )
3) Lightning Desktop App ( https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-app/releases )
4) yalls.org for spending testnet microtransactions ( https://yalls.org/ )

It's still rough around the edges though.

Is there some kind of guide for the eclair testnet wallet? I downloaded it on my phone but have no idea what exactly am i supposed to do with this. Do I get testnet currency from some faucet?

Yep, just get testnet bitcoins from one of the faucets. Here for example:

https://testnet.manu.backend.hamburg/faucet

In Eclair swipe to the leftmost screen for your testnet address (starts with 2...) and once you got some coins swipe to the rightmost screen and open a new channel by tapping on the big green plus button. Autoconnect should suffice for the first try.

Once the connection is confirmed (ie. the channel state says "normal") you can send lightning transactions from the main screen by scanning payment requests -- eg. on yalls.org or by creating a payment request for yourself on the HTLC.me web wallet.

[Samarkand]

...

My biggest hope in regards to kickstarting LN adoption is currently merchants and the likes of BitPay. BitPay has nothing to gain from people buying Bitcoin unless they actually use them. So in this case the incentives should be aligned in LN's favor.

BitPay has the problem that their complete business model becomes unfeasible
if Bitcoin is used mainly as a store of value. Therefore their incentives might also
differ completely from the incentives of people, who hold Bitcoin as a long-term
investment.

I think it is quite unfortunate that many of the biggest businesses in the Bitcoin ecosystem
(Coinbase/GDax and BitPay) are stalling things that would improve the Bitcoin user
experience for everyone.

[fabiANI]

Why pay more, if you can pay less?

[figmentofmyass]

there is no ETA. lightning developers have taken the position that there is "no rush" considering how much value is expected to be stored in payment channels. they are very concerned about ensuring that no funds are lost as a result of using the LN protocol.

having said that, it's pretty widely expected that LN will be usable by the general public sometime this year, likely in a matter of months. the next major step is to complete wallet implementations. we're already seeing lightning transactions on the network; now it's mainly just a matter of releasing the software.

It's not like there's an actual "official LN launch" date or anything like that. Rather LN will be "launched" when people feel confident enough in one or more implementations of LN to use it on the main Bitcoin network. In fact, you could consider LN to already be launched as there already are people using LN on the mainnet. Of course those people do so at the risk of their money, but nonetheless, the software mostly works and there are transactions occurring.

yeah, i get that. which is why i say "usable by the general public." you could say that LN was "launched" once the various developer teams agreed on network specification or once the first mainnet transaction was made based on that, but those aren't useful metrics. lightning developers are still losing money in channels at this point, so far less sophisticated users (and certainly the general public) shouldn't be encouraged to use LN right now. they should wait for production wallets.

i don't entirely disagree with cobra here:

The way @Blockstream is promoting LN use on mainnet is very irresponsible. People will lose money and LN reputation will be damaged.

[gold1112]

If Lightning Network will appear in btc. Then who will add it to btc blockchain? Does btc has own dev team? Please explain me if you can 

[HeRetiK]

If Lightning Network will appear in btc. Then who will add it to btc blockchain? Does btc has own dev team? Please explain me if you can 

Lightning Network has different dev teams working on it than Bitcoin itself. Some developers work on both. LN does not get added to the Bitcoin blockchain and it does not require a modification of the Bitcoin protocol. Rather it will require the use of new clients (ie. wallets) that know how to open Lightning channels and how to handle Lightning transactions.

Deployment is happening as we speak with the first few people running Lightning nodes on mainnet. This means LN is already live, however using it is not recommended for the average user yet as LN still needs to be thoroughly tested and improved.

[Spendulus]

there is no ETA. lightning developers have taken the position that there is "no rush" considering how much value is expected to be stored in payment channels. they are very concerned about ensuring that no funds are lost as a result of using the LN protocol.

having said that, it's pretty widely expected that LN will be usable by the general public sometime this year, likely in a matter of months. the next major step is to complete wallet implementations. we're already seeing lightning transactions on the network; now it's mainly just a matter of releasing the software.

It's not like there's an actual "official LN launch" date or anything like that. Rather LN will be "launched" when people feel confident enough....

Okay I just figured out how to launch LN in a way everyone will understand.

THE DAY A PIZZA WAS BOUGHT WITH LN!!!!!

(Echoing the famous bitcoin pizza purchase of course)

Or even better....

THE DAY 10,000 PIZZAS WERE BOUGHT WITH LN

[onnz423]

Lightning network usage will be encouraged by user demand, companies will implement the lightning network when their competition starts to do so. Similar to preferring segwit transactions right now, you see some people will not trade with a company that doesn't implement segwit, thus if they want to survive in a competition environment they will utilize every edge they can get, bringing down theirs and the customers fee.

[Kevin381]

How may it be rapidly established?

Things seem to mover very slowly, look at segwit adoption.

Some kind of incentives at the start?

Some people think that the lightning network will create 'hubs' that connect the users and collectively taking transaction fees, monitoring spending and possibly monthly fees and maybe lending possibilities...? This to me sounds like a centralised bank... and defeats the actual purpose of Bitcoin. The block size has obviously been held back... why??...perhaps the developers to make more money with this system...?

Surely XPR and Stella solve the current banking international transaction fees and times.

Personally I believe in a true peer to peer system for the people. Bitcoin did it's job to be the first through the door and awake the people to the possibility of financial decentralisation. I think unfortunately it will be killed off or chained down with the lightning network but it has paved the way. I support BCC and other crypto that share the original idea.   

[d5000]

It's very likely that it will still just be a "Send" button. Channel management and all that will actually be handled by the software automatically. You put money into your LN wallet, and it will use that to open and close channels automatically. So when you want to send Bitcoin to someone, your LN wallet will have established several channels. It will also determine an optimal route and do everything automatically for you. There's no need for you to manually open and close channels yourself; the software will handle all of that for you.

That sounds nice in theory. The problem I see with this approach is that people would expect to pay "zero fees" or at least "low fees" when using a LN wallet, but if the channel management is totally automatic, then now and then they will be charged high transaction fees (e.g. if they pay something on a regular workday with high network load and the client just needs to open a new channel) and will be surprised that they have, from one moment to another, $10 less (or even more, we don't know how fees will evolve, but I don't expect them to be much lower than now if there is more adoption).

If people instead knew that they should open payment channels when there is low network congestion and fees are low, then I think acceptance will be higher. I for myself would use a client which lets me choose the point in time where I do the "expensive" channel-opening transaction, and above all, I can select how many channels, and to whom, I want to have open (no algorithm can detect potential scammers, and the algorithm can also not know if the first TX I do is to someone with whom I will make payments frequently).

Because of these usability issues, I expect that Lightning will see broader adoption if exchanges adopt it, because they are normally the places where you get your Bitcoins from. And exchanges unfortunately are the most used Bitcoin service now. Exchanges will open channels with you for no fee or only a low fee (less than the transaction fee), and the most lazy of us will continue to use their online wallets so they don't have to care about channels (so you won't even know if they're using LN or some centralized clearing system ...).

That is not necessarily negative, but it means that the network will be, at first, pretty centralized, and then it could slowly evolve into the decentralized network that most "anarchist" LN supporters want it to become.

[sjyi]

You can't make money running the Lightening Node (LN).  So initially, mostly a organizations (companies, stores, etc...) with significant number of transactions would be participating in setting up the channels to make multiple small payments.  The economic benefit has to be significant for people to use the feature.

[amishmanish]

Some people think that the lightning network will create 'hubs' that connect the users and collectively taking transaction fees, monitoring spending and possibly monthly fees and maybe lending possibilities...? This to me sounds like a centralised bank... and defeats the actual purpose of Bitcoin. The block size has obviously been held back... why??...perhaps the developers to make more money with this system...?

A bank holds your funds in such a way that it can mismanage them and you can lose them. As far as the 'hubs' in LN are concerned, they cannot hold your funds or lose them. The fee that we are talking about is also not implicit in the network. LN is supposed to be a decentralized way to allow smaller transactions. When you open a channel with someone, depending on the fund that you commit to it, you become a hub yourself.

Sure, the bigger hubs would be made up of merchants and providers who implement LN. But they wouldn't be holding any funds captive. If the implementation was as simple as just giving over custody of funds, it wouldn't take so much code and testing to implement.

Surely XPR and Stella solve the current banking international transaction fees and times.

Personally I believe in a true peer to peer system for the people. Bitcoin did it's job to be the first through the door and awake the people to the possibility of financial decentralisation. I think unfortunately it will be killed off or chained down with the lightning network but it has paved the way. I support BCC and other crypto that share the original idea.   

A true peer-to-peer system has to scale first. And in a decentralized manner. People on the lower block size believe that independent full nodes run by people without access to terabytes of storages (for long term) are the basis of decentralization. Do you agree with that?
XRP is closed source and has its own masternodes (That is centralization).
With high block size and a blockchain growing by terabytes every year is for miners and data-center level investors, thats centralization.

LN on the other hand relies on the network effect of a lot of people joining in and then acting as hubs in their own right. A micropayment of 100 Satoshi can easily use my meager 0.1 BTC as a 'hub', if i decide to commit those small funds to my LN wallet.
Even i get to be a hub with just < 0.1 BTC.
You support BCC, all good, but know that its going to be have its own scaling monsters, if and when it starts to be adopted. And then the same people will copy the code and give it some other RPG-sounding name. They are the people who thought that simply hard-forking and increasing block size to support the explosive growth and then tweaking for future improvements would be a better idea. Like Microsoft updates.
Different work ethics i guess, but we all have our sides chosen. 

[Kevin381]

Absolutely valid points. I do hope the LN delivers and isn't 'taken advantage' of. Regardless... any developing technology will always have hurdles to overcome. Now days I see a lot more power to the consumer with all areas of technology. Who remembers when the internet was $1 a minute, I do! or when a text message was 50c each. Now its unlimited data and unlimited texts. I hope the same way goes for true decentralised currency. To me a true decentralised currency is one that is 100% owned by the owner regardless. Most people already find bitcoin confusing enough, then add all the competitors with their own quirks and solutions.... for anyone new coming into LN network will be a mind bend!! then moving into mass adoption it needs to be super simple, super fast and better than what we already have. Bitcoin was a truly GREAT innovation and a real cornerstone for humanity. I hope LN will allow this great work to reach its true potential, if not... like with the existing system (fiat, banks, governments) people wont stand for it and will demand an alternative.   

[Vitolife]

I absolutely like LN, as of now only on testnet, although there is already first company using LN for accepting payments. It solves the issues we have with th crypto transactions - instant payments, very low fees, ease of use. Hopefully it would be soon deployed or at least I hope more companies woudl try to inplement it at least in beta version to show the benefits of LN to general public.

[jets567]

During my newbie days and it was the day when LTC was introduce i was really a big fan of it coz it uses this kind of technology. But since BTC adopted it i instantly switch into it for faster and really smooth transaction. I experience transacting LTC and i really find it very good same as bitcoin lightning.

[Queen Esther]

Hi, can someone eplain to me what lightnig network is all about?

[HeRetiK]

Hi, can someone eplain to me what lightnig network is all about?

In short:

Fast and cheap monetary transactions without relying on any third parties such as banks or credit card companies.


More lengthy explanation:

Bitcoin enables monetary transactions between two or more parties without relying on central entities such as banks or credit card companies. This works fine if you only have a limited number of users, but gets more difficult the more active users there are. This is because only a limited number of transactions can be handled per second. Lightning Network enables more transactions per seconds by bundling up multiple transactions into payment channels, that is you get multiple transactions for the price of two: Opening and closing a payment channel.


That's as deep as I would get into it without knowing how familiar you are with cryptocurrencies and the scaling debate of the last few months. I hope it gives you a starting point.

If you feel like binging Wikipedia, the Wikipedia page for Lightning Network should give you a rough overview, sprinkled with links to other concepts that you might potentially need to get familiar with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network