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?

[1714941621]

1714941621

[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.