Misconceptions about the Lightning Network

[Wind_FURY]

The great explainer, Andreas Antonopoluous talks about the Lightning Network, what it's not, and answers some of the misunderstandings and the FUD. I hope this helps some of you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4TjfaLgzj4

I wanted to post this on the main Bitcoin forum but it might be drowned out by the flood of spam.

[Kakmakr]

We have to acknowledge that the Lightning Network is a huge threat to some Alt coins. <Like BCash> We have seen how desperate some of these guys have been, to pay shills to post FUD about Bitcoin, so I will not be surprised if those same people are being paid to attack the Lightning Network.

The latest FUD being spread about the Lightning Network is that it would "centralize" Bitcoin. They are saying "Banks" will monopolize payment hubs and all other channels will be rendered void. <This has been countered on many platforms, but they still dancing on the same old song>

The video just validate what many people have been saying, but they will ignore this too.

[greenuser]

Forgive me if i am wrong but the rules for this section of the forum state "No third-party sites/clients?"

Is LN not a third party client?

Should this discussion not be on the child board?

[Xynerise]

Forgive me if i am wrong but the rules for this section of the forum state "No third-party sites/clients?"

Is LN not a third party client?

Should this discussion not be on the child board?

Not necessarily.
LN works as a layer on the bitcoin blockchain -- like TCP/IP or HTTP so it's not a client per se and so it fits here.

There have been suggestions for a board just for LN but Theymos hasn't done anything about it yet.

[sjefdeklerk]

Wow. These are 22 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Damn this is really the worst video why did you even post this ? He's talking about 'common misconceptions' but I've never heard anybody having those misconceptions at all. Whoever said you NEED to have a direct shared channel to make a payment? More importantly, he doesn't discuss ANY of the criticism and problems concerning LN. Like: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2792933

[Wind_FURY]

We have to acknowledge that the Lightning Network is a huge threat to some Alt coins. <Like BCash> We have seen how desperate some of these guys have been, to pay shills to post FUD about Bitcoin, so I will not be surprised if those same people are being paid to attack the Lightning Network.

The latest FUD being spread about the Lightning Network is that it would "centralize" Bitcoin. They are saying "Banks" will monopolize payment hubs and all other channels will be rendered void. <This has been countered on many platforms, but they still dancing on the same old song>

The video just validate what many people have been saying, but they will ignore this too.

They are not as "desperate" as you believe. They have also been developing something.

Take a look.

https://twitter.com/CryptAxe/status/964666919885271040

https://github.com/drivechain-project/docs/commits?author=CryptAxe

Paul Storzc's "Drivechains" might be Bitcoin Cash's scaling solution, maybe to be announced in their "Satoshi's Vision" conference on 3/23/2018.

I believe it was a mistake selling all my Bitcoin Cash. Hahaha.

Wow. These are 22 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Damn this is really the worst video why did you even post this ? He's talking about 'common misconceptions' but I've never heard anybody having those misconceptions at all. Whoever said you NEED to have a direct shared channel to make a payment? More importantly, he doesn't discuss ANY of the criticism and problems concerning LN. Like: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2792933

Those are questions asked from his Twitter. Stop trying to make yourself look "smart".

[HeRetiK]

They are not as "desperate" as you believe. They have also been developing something.

Take a look.

https://twitter.com/CryptAxe/status/964666919885271040

https://github.com/drivechain-project/docs/commits?author=CryptAxe

Paul Storzc's "Drivechains" might be Bitcoin Cash's scaling solution, maybe to be announced in their "Satoshi's Vision" conference on 3/23/2018.

I believe it was a mistake selling all my Bitcoin Cash. Hahaha.

Funny. A couple of months ago r/btc was still criticizing Bitcoin Core for scaling with what they perceived as federated sidechains. Now sidechains appear to be one of the main innovations coming to Bitcoin Cash.

Also the motivation behind implementing drivechain reads like a checklist of what they critizied about Core when SegWit was still debated (ie. protecting Bitcoin from hard forks, ignoring ideas...)

I digress though and I still need to read through it from a technical perspective.

But you definitely got a good point. The alts aren't sleeping. Ethereum also has some interesting developments going. And I'm sure some of the other alts as well.

Keep in mind though that a lot of these innovations are not exclusive to each respective blockchain. Sidechains have been in the works for Bitcoin even before Bitcoin Cash entered the stage. Vice versa Lightning Network can be implemented on any blockchain that doesn't suffer from transaction malleability.

[sjefdeklerk]

Those are questions asked from his Twitter. Stop trying to make yourself look "smart".

Wow. So some idiot asks these questions on twitter and all of a sudden these are 'common misconceptions' ? This whole thread is a fraud, you make it look like there are just some 'common misconceptions' and that people just don't understand it. While the reality is that there are some really big problems with LN, like I outlined in that thread I linked: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2792933 . You can also read about those problems all over the internet: https://www.google.com/search?ei=En-MWtj-B8bX5gK4lqvQBQ&q=why+lightning+network+will+fail&oq=why+light&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.35i39k1j0i203k1l9.23339.26530.0.28147.25.18.5.0.0.0.259.2095.0j12j2.14.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..7.18.1911...0j0i67k1j0i10k1j0i13k1j0i10i203k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1.0.EoguTQ3fY1E

[HCP]

You mentioned in the other thread a couple of points which, personally, I find to be "reaching" when it comes to actually identifying what I would consider to be "real" issues with LN.

For instance:

* Very difficult to use and explain to users. No way your mother let alone grandmother is going to understand all this.

That really isn't a valid argument... I'm fairly sure that at least 90% of people who use the internet every single day have ZERO knowledge of TCP/IP, HTTP(S), SSL and other technologies underpinning the internet... and yet they're able to post selfies and pictures of their cats/grandchildren without too much issue.

Likewise, I doubt that many people understand the inner workings of internal combustion engines or how a clutch/transmission works... and yet they drive cars around.

The challenge there is not that people need to understand the underlying tech... we just need to provide applications that enable them to use it.

* You still have huge fees if you want to wire money into/outside the channel.
* It's also not feasible for very small payments/channels. If you open a $30 channel with your coffeeshop to buy a few cups of coffee per week, then the price of your coffee doubles because of the huge fees to open/close the channel. Your only option is to route and HOPE there IS a route.

You mention "huge fees"... exactly where are these "huge fees"... last time I looked, there are transactions getting confirmed with 2 sats/byte fees... OMG... outrageous! /s

Sure, fees have been ridiculous in the past... but that was because the mempool was flooded and the whole supply/demand thing kicks off. Now imagine that the vast majority of those transactions are no longer in the mempool and are shifted "off chain" onto the LN... what is likely to happen supply/demand-wise then?

Less on-chain transactions = less "demand"/same "supply" = lower fees...  That's kind of the whole point of LN.

[sjefdeklerk]

That really isn't a valid argument... I'm fairly sure that at least 90% of people who use the internet every single day have ZERO knowledge of TCP/IP, HTTP(S), SSL and other technologies underpinning the internet... and yet they're able to post selfies and pictures of their cats/grandchildren without too much issue.

That's because they don't need it. But how do you make sure you won't be charged an on-chain fee while you're paying for your coffee? You really need to be knowing how it works and be able to select what you want.

You mention "huge fees"... exactly where are these "huge fees"... last time I looked, there are transactions getting confirmed with 2 sats/byte fees... OMG... outrageous! /s

Sure, fees have been ridiculous in the past... but that was because the mempool was flooded and the whole supply/demand thing kicks off. Now imagine that the vast majority of those transactions are no longer in the mempool and are shifted "off chain" onto the LN... what is likely to happen supply/demand-wise then?

Less on-chain transactions = less "demand"/same "supply" = lower fees...  That's kind of the whole point of LN.

Bitcoin transactions have been declining big time. We're now at 187k daily transactions while there where 500k transactions not too long ago and the bitcoin fee was $65. Mind you, even 500k transaction per day is pretty much nothing world wide, VISA processes 150 million per day for example. Now imagine that bitcoin ever becomes popular. You probably can't use LN for payments over $100 dollar or it will become difficult already to find a route, so you're doomed to on-chain payment (or open a channel and also pay the on-chain fee). Now imagine what the on-chain fees will be if even 5 million on chain payments per day take place ? Probably hundreds of dollars!

*EDIT* LOL what am I even talking about, 5 million on-chain payments per day is impossible, bitcoin only supports maximum 600k payments/day !!

[pebwindkraft]

Those are questions asked from his Twitter. Stop trying to make yourself look "smart".

Wow. So some idiot asks these questions on twitter and all of a sudden these are 'common misconceptions' ? This whole thread is a fraud, you make it look like there are just some 'common misconceptions' and that people just don't understand it. While the reality is that there are some really big problems with LN, like I outlined in that thread I linked: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2792933 . You can also read about those problems all over the internet: https://www.google.com/search?ei=En-MWtj-B8bX5gK4lqvQBQ&q=why+lightning+network+will+fail&oq=why+light&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.35i39k1j0i203k1l9.23339.26530.0.28147.25.18.5.0.0.0.259.2095.0j12j2.14.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..7.18.1911...0j0i67k1j0i10k1j0i13k1j0i10i203k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1.0.EoguTQ3fY1E

You start to sound like AntiCen and dinofelis. Both have had these types of problems with not understanding Lightning, spreading FUD, and have been censored already. Look, just because you have limitations in understanding Lightning,you don’t need to warn others with these constructed (unproved!!!) statements.
Show us your Lightning test setup, and the test driven results, which drive your statements. In a way, so we can repeat them, and get inside view of your understanding. I bet you haven’t any setup, and work on a purely theoretical level...
It is perfectly ok to stay suspicious, but your predictions and comparisons only make sense in your ideological world. If you have never heard someone stating these misconceptions, this further proofs, that your egocentric picture of the world doesn’t reflect reality.

Bitcoin supports only 600k tx/day? Proof it! I am convinced, you will quickly find the error in your very bold message!
Looking at the FUD already spreaded, I start to think that next level of FUD will be banking hubs..

[HeRetiK]

Bitcoin supports only 600k tx/day? Proof it! I am convinced, you will quickly find the error in your very bold message!
Looking at the FUD already spreaded, I start to think that next level of FUD will be banking hubs..

Transaction throughput of legacy transaction is limited at roughly 7 transactions per seconds ie. 600,000 transactions per day, so that statement is true.

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

Or used to be, as a full switch to SegWit transactions doubles on-chain transaction throughput to 1,200,000 transactions per day which is still barely a drop in the bucket.

So yeah, on-chain scaling is hardly viable. Which no one except big blockers is arguing against. Which is why LN has been implemented in the first place.

Bitcoin transactions have been declining big time. We're now at 187k daily transactions while there where 500k transactions not too long ago and the bitcoin fee was $65.

This statement is merely based on the outlier that was December. It's like saying "Bitcoin price has declined big time" which, while true, focuses on short term trends and ignores the big picture.

Mind you, even 500k transaction per day is pretty much nothing world wide, VISA processes 150 million per day for example. Now imagine that bitcoin ever becomes popular. You probably can't use LN for payments over $100 dollar or it will become difficult already to find a route, so you're doomed to on-chain payment (or open a channel and also pay the on-chain fee).

Ignoring that we're yet to find out where the viable transaction limit of LN really lies, it's kinda funny that you should mention both VISA and payments over USD 100,-.

It just so happens that at least a couple of years ago the average transaction size of VISA was below USD 100,-

https://www.statista.com/statistics/279308/average-credit-card-transaction-value-worldwide/

So what you're really saying is that LN will be capable of handling average VISA transactions

[HCP]

That's because they don't need it. But how do you make sure you won't be charged an on-chain fee while you're paying for your coffee? You really need to be knowing how it works and be able to select what you want.

No... I would argue that you don't.

Imagine a wallet app that has a a "prepaid" card function in it. So, you simply "top it up" with a certain BTC value (ie. putting funds into a channel, which happens behind the scenes, hidden from the user)... User then walks into cafe, selects that particular "card"/address/whatever from the app... boom... LN transaction.

I'm sure you could even include this sort of functionality into a loyalty card app or something similar.

It isn't any different to making sure you're paying from the right account when using a debit card


I congratulate you for playing devil's advocate and making sure that people ARE thinking about some of the challenges facing LN, but like I said... some of the "issues" that have been raised, aren't really issues.

[sjefdeklerk]

Imagine a wallet app that has a a "prepaid" card function in it. So, you simply "top it up" with a certain BTC value (ie. putting funds into a channel, which happens behind the scenes, hidden from the user)... User then walks into cafe, selects that particular "card"/address/whatever from the app... boom... LN transaction.

You do realize that this 'prepaid card' of yours would cost the on-chain fee? And what happens when there's not a route available to your target?

some of the "issues" that have been raised, aren't really issues.

So far you haven't really brought up any good arguments against them.

[sjefdeklerk]

So what you're really saying is that LN will be capable of handling average VISA transactions

It might. Nobody knows but I assume any payment above $100 might become problematic with LN. Only time will tell though.

[Wind_FURY]

Those are questions asked from his Twitter. Stop trying to make yourself look "smart".

Wow. So some idiot asks these questions on twitter and all of a sudden these are 'common misconceptions' ? This whole thread is a fraud, you make it look like there are just some 'common misconceptions' and that people just don't understand it. While the reality is that there are some really big problems with LN, like I outlined in that thread I linked: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2792933 . You can also read about those problems all over the internet: https://www.google.com/search?ei=En-MWtj-B8bX5gK4lqvQBQ&q=why+lightning+network+will+fail&oq=why+light&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.35i39k1j0i203k1l9.23339.26530.0.28147.25.18.5.0.0.0.259.2095.0j12j2.14.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..7.18.1911...0j0i67k1j0i10k1j0i13k1j0i10i203k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1.0.EoguTQ3fY1E

Sorry, I assumed they were asked on Twitter. Watch the video, he looked like he was reading some text then started answering them.

For your concerns, go post in Andreas Antonopolous' Twitter and bring all of them there. I'm sure you will get all the answers you are looking for. Or show him your thread, maybe he'll grace us with his presence. Hehehe.

Plus, I agree. There are problems in LN, that's why it's not even in beta yet. But that does not mean the developers should not work on a layer 2 solution.

[cannycassiopeia]

Wow. These are 22 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Damn this is really the worst video why did you even post this ? He's talking about 'common misconceptions' but I've never heard anybody having those misconceptions at all. Whoever said you NEED to have a direct shared channel to make a payment? More importantly, he doesn't discuss ANY of the criticism and problems concerning LN. Like: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2792933

I watched it and he makes valid points. And now I'm pro-LN so much that I transcribed the talk for others who just want to read.

Bitcoin Q&A: Misconceptions about Lightning Network - Andreas Antonopoluous
https://pastebin.com/sRU6AcKC
Transcription by CannyCassiopeia

[paz-1991]

What is this? He doesn't answer the real questions about Lightning........ 

[cellard]

Now that you mentioned wikipedia (@Heretik's post), anyone noticed how there are trolls in wikipedia constantly changing the Bitcoin page and the scalability related pages?

In the Bitcoin page, if you look at the edit history, some trolls are always trying to make BCash look as if there are now officially "2 Bitcoins". Notice how a former edit said "Bitcoin split in two". The current one shows the following:

On 1 August 2017, a hard fork of bitcoin was created, known as Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash has a larger block size limit and had an identical blockchain at the time of fork.[43][44] On 12 November another hard fork, Bitcoin Gold, was created. Bitcoin Gold changes the proof-of-work algorithm used in mining.[45][46]

I wouldn't have a problem with in principle, since it doesn't say anything that isn't true, but beware with the wikipedia page, trolls are always around, mostly /r/btc trolls.

The "Segregated Witness" page is also usually at edit war.

[Wind_FURY]

https://soundcloud.com/mindtomatter/ltb-356-real-lightning-with

Another Lightning Network "misconception" material but in Soundcloud this time. It's an interview on the "Let's Talk Bitcoin" show featuring Andreas Antonopolous and Elizabeth Stark of Lightning Labs.

As Bitcoin users we should force ourselves to learn the latest information out there and be more informed about Bitcoin's latest developments.