SegWit, or The Lightning Network?

[cybersofts]

Well, about 2-3 weeks ago, my favorite bitcoin exchange (Luno.com) integrated the SegWit which reduces the bitcoin transaction fees from an average of $15 to only $0.05... How sweet was that? Paying only $0.05 for bitcoin transaction because of SegWit is now cheaper than Ethereum gas fee with an average of $1.20. Yet some huge bitcoin exchanges such as CoinBase and BitFinex are going ahead to integrate SegWit on their platforms to ease and reduce the bitcoin transactions fees for their customers.

So, which do you think is better between the SegWit and LN? thanks

[1715555867]

1715555867

[1715555867]

1715555867

[1715555867]

1715555867

[1715555867]

1715555867

[1715555867]

1715555867

[1715555867]

1715555867

[aintnopassincraze]

Do we have to pick between either of them? I think they are both fabulous and I can't wait for when we get more upgrades like mimblewimble and rootstock. Fwiw the reason the biggest exchanges are going slow is because if they integrate too quick or incorrect they risk losing the confidence of a lot of investors and we don't want that. Also their systems are probably more vast and complicated than your average website meaning it will take more time naturally.

[hakans]

They are different things, segwit makes for faster on-chain transactions while lightning network does off chain transfers like within a smartcontract.

[FrueGreads]

Although they are "related", they are both different things and both will be implement in bitcoin. Segwit was actually a necessary update to bitcoin, so that the lightning network could then be added in the future. Also, although segwit helps reduce the fees, and it was not a scalability update. It just helps on that regard, but it's not it's true purpose. So if you like things now, you will be amazed with what LN will be able to do. Transactions will be super fast, as good as Visa, or maybe better. Fees will be minimal or non existent once a payment channel is open. It just doesn't compare. I have no preference of one over the other, because they are both necessary for bitcoin to improve.

[pentol86]

my friend says ligtning network better than segwit, also he explain to me segwit and lightning network is different, im little confused how to lightning network implemented to blockchain

[MrZ28s]

Really really cool if those two will be integrated into bitcoin. I myself is expecting an upgrade anytime soon. Hopefully this will happen within this year or even earlier.

[xoboomer]

As far as I understand, SegWit is proposed to avoid increase block size. With SegWit activated, the data of each transaction is handle outside of each block and it can increase the block size with maximum of 2MB. However, even in case of all infrastructure implement 100% Segwit, the total throughput can be double in capacity which is still far beyond expectation for mass adoption. As for LN, it is better such that the transaction is occur off chain and near zero fee with instant confirmation. However, to implement LN, the Bitcoin chain has to set aside a prefunded BTC locked outside of mainchain. And this fund has to be constantly topped up to maintain the payment route for BTC. Such offchain fund is efficient for payments, but they would be exposed risk for hacker and more decentralized. For the purpose of scaling, LN is better but it is still not the perfect solution.

[ranman09]

As far as I understand, SegWit is proposed to avoid increase block size. With SegWit activated, the data of each transaction is handle outside of each block and it can increase the block size with maximum of 2MB. However, even in case of all infrastructure implement 100% Segwit, the total throughput can be double in capacity which is still far beyond expectation for mass adoption. As for LN, it is better such that the transaction is occur off chain and near zero fee with instant confirmation. However, to implement LN, the Bitcoin chain has to set aside a prefunded BTC locked outside of mainchain. And this fund has to be constantly topped up to maintain the payment route for BTC. Such offchain fund is efficient for payments, but they would be exposed risk for hacker and more decentralized. For the purpose of scaling, LN is better but it is still not the perfect solution.

Nicely said!, thank you. For LN also I think you need to open what they call channels where both users need to fund first. This channel is where their transaction will happen and will be finalized before it will be written in the blockchain. Isnt that too hassle?

[yesuidanggan]

I think the lightning network is a centralized system. Similar to the role played by bank intermediaries in traditional transfer operations.

Is a fast payment network, payment and settlement separation.

I like the lightning network.

[Thefrolly]

They both are good in their own ways.

Transactions sent over the Lightning Network are much faster than even Segwit. It also reduced congestion on the Bitcoin Network.

But Segwit adds several security improvements to the Bitcoin blockchain. It has high capacity and lower fess too.

[Notcalculator]

Both are necessary updates. Segwit fixes the expensive confirmation and because of the smaller sizes of transactions it also makes it faster up to some point and lightning network fixes the slow confirmation. This is necessary for everyday transactions like when you're buying a cup of coffee -- you dont want to wait a minute for it to be finalized. But lightining network isnt magic, it still has to communicate with the blockchain so it would still need segwit to store it. But if i had to choose i guess, i'd still go for lightning network. Some say it's centralized,  and somehow it is, but i think it's a nice trade off between decentralization and speed.  In the long run i think this is best as it would slow down the growth speed of the chain.

[Kakmakr]

NSFW :  ...Well, SegWit is like foreplay for full blown sex. You cannot have the Lightning Network, if you did not implement SegWit first. SegWit included some code that was the preparation for the Lightning Network. If your local exchange was one of the first to implement SegWit, then you should applaud them for that, because they are pioneers in this field.

I think many of these SegWit enabled exchanges will also host Lightning Network hubs in the future and this will be the orgasm to this orgy. ^smile^

[FrueGreads]

NSFW :  ...Well, SegWit is like foreplay for full blown sex. You cannot have the Lightning Network, if you did not implement SegWit first. SegWit included some code that was the preparation for the Lightning Network. If your local exchange was one of the first to implement SegWit, then you should applaud them for that, because they are pioneers in this field.

I think many of these SegWit enabled exchanges will also host Lightning Network hubs in the future and this will be the orgasm to this orgy. ^smile^

That's a funny way to put things, but I couldn't agree with you more.

As for exchanges using segwit, and although they seem to be taking forever to do so, specially big ones, like coinbase, I must say I understand their position. A lot has been said about their priority not being focused on their customers well being, and some even go further by saying that coinbase was almost deliberately "sabotaging" bitcoin by contributing to the high fees we were having. I honestly don't think they were doing that. They are one of the largest exchanges, and they need to approach these steps with caution, and with a lot of testing first, because any mistakes in their business would represent a huge blow in terms of profit, and actually a huge blow for bitcoin as well, since coinbase is seen as one of the safest exchanges out there.

If they would lose funds because they've decided to rush things, the impact on bitcoin would be huge, so I'm glad they took their time, and I do believe everything will turn out well. As for their priority I would say it's profit of course. They are running a business, and I don't expect that their main concern it the well being of their customers. So if implementing bcash trade first would give them more profit, I understand that this would be their priority. Nothing really wrong with that, and I think it's normal.

[Lmaooo]

NSFW :  ...Well, SegWit is like foreplay for full blown sex. You cannot have the Lightning Network, if you did not implement SegWit first. SegWit included some code that was the preparation for the Lightning Network. If your local exchange was one of the first to implement SegWit, then you should applaud them for that, because they are pioneers in this field.

I think many of these SegWit enabled exchanges will also host Lightning Network hubs in the future and this will be the orgasm to this orgy. ^smile^

The segwit and lightning network are bit complicated many people must read great comments like this one to truly understand how they can work together to help improve the scalability of the bitcoin network.