Is lightning really the answer?

[alexksso]

Hey,

I keep having crypto enthusiasts praising the lightning network approach around me... and I'm not getting it

When I look at it, it only really works if you have channels open with people with more liquidity than the largest transaction you'd ever execute through them.
I think that really looks like a lot like the banking system, where the bank is the liquidity provider where your cash is being held.

I don't think Bitcoin needs lightning, I believe bitcoin is specializing in high-value asset store rather than in the everyday coin in your pocket, and I'd rather use altcoins than patch bitcoin with lightning to make it work.


Thoughts?  

[alexksso]

Thanks for the links - super interesting!

Why does Bitcoin need to scale to VISA scale? I do believe Bitcoin has a role to play for higher value transaction at smaller frequency.

LN really seem like a monkey patch - I can see how they seem interesting, but I'd rather use an altcoin (Nano for instance) than throw my coins on lightning.

[bitart]

Thanks for the links - super interesting!

Why does Bitcoin need to scale to VISA scale? I do believe Bitcoin has a role to play for higher value transaction at smaller frequency.

LN really seem like a monkey patch - I can see how they seem interesting, but I'd rather use an altcoin (Nano for instance) than throw my coins on lightning.

You are a newbie, and you belive that Bitcoin has nothing to do with small payments. You also know some alts, too and you know what they are useful for.
But most of the newbies and the Average Joe's around the world don't have a clue about altcoins, some (most) of them don't know bitcoin at all. Maybe they have heard about bitcoin in the news last December but that's all.
If they will ever start to use bitcoin, they will not start to use alts at the same time. But they will want to pay for their coffee and for the daily things with bitcoin, so there's a real demand to develop Bitcoin to be able to handle the small transactions. One solution can be the lightning network, but unfortunately there are even less people who know about lightning yet...

[richardsNY]

LN really seem like a monkey patch - I can see how they seem interesting, but I'd rather use an altcoin (Nano for instance) than throw my coins on lightning.

No one forces you to use Bitcoin, so if you believe that an altcoin serves you in a better way, then definitely go for it. Just keep in mind that altcoins in no shape or form can offer what Bitcoin offers in terms of its network security and ecosystem. People quite often think that altcoins are better because they offer faster and cheaper confirmations, but they don't realize that their confirmations are cheaper because of how empty their networks are. In the same way that applies to B-Cash. Roger Ver keeps making fun of how expensive Bitcoin in comparison to his shitcoin, but he doesn't tell you that the only reason its cheaper is because of how almost no one uses that shitcoin....

[franky1]

You clearly don't understand how LN works.

1. It's true that you connect to another person through nodes, but that doesn't mean the nodes hold your Bitcoin.
2. Clearly LN is different with banking system since you can connect to another person more than a way (if available) and LN HLTC (hashed timelock contract) is encrypted.
3. Without LN or other side-chain solution, Bitcoin can't scale to the VISA/global transaction level. Even with increasing block weight (not block size), this will disrupt decentralization.\

Some links that might be useful for you :
https://medium.com/@The1Brand7/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70
https://hackernoon.com/an-overview-of-lightning-network-5a46cf3689f6

seems you dont understand it..
lets say Alexksso, bitart, ichardsNY and ETFbitcoin were using LN

[alex:bitart]  [bitart:ETFbitcoin]  [ETFbitcoin:richardsNY]

alex puts in 0.1btc
bitart only has 0.2btc to deposit
ETFbitcoin only has 0.005btc
richards has 0.1btc
[alex:bitart]  [bitart:ETFbitcoin]  [ETFbitcoin:richardsNY]
  [0.1:0.1]       [0.1:0.0025]            [0.0025:0.1]

now bitart wants to pay 0.1 to richardsNY
but ETFbitcoin cant route it.. ETfbitcoin only has 0.0025 to pay richardsNY
so the payment cant be made from bitart to richard

now bitart has to close the channel costing him on onchain fee. to then open a new channel with someone else to move those funds into a possible route  with diffrent people that could

..
or imagine this
[alex:bitart]  [bitart:ETFbitcoin]  [ETFbitcoin:richardsNY]
  [0.1:0.1]       [0.1:0.0025]            [0.0025:0.1]

alex wants to pay richardsNY 0.0025
ok theres enough funds per channel to route the paymnt.. lets do it
[0.0975:0.1025] [0.1:0.0025]  [0.0025:0.1]  alex pays bitart
[0.0975:0.1025] [0.0075:0.005] [0.0025:0.1]  bitart pays ETF
[0.0975:0.1025] [0.0075:0.005] [0.0:0.1025]  ETF pays richardNY

ok the payment is complete alex paid richardsNY 0.0025
.. now the problem
bitart no longer has 0.1btc of his own funds to pay either ETF or richard
ETF has 0 of his own funds to pay richards

all because alex made the route useless.. so now bitart and ETF have to close channels to re-agregate their funds in new routes.

LN is not a constantly open, not limitless utility, not send any amount.
channels will need to be closed and opened more often then people thing.

imagine you had a joint bank account.. you deposit $100.. but then your wife wants to buy coffee for all of her friends using your joint bank account..
even if you put a limit of $5 per payment.. your wife simply makes 20 payments of $5.. and your funds are gone before you yourself even got to spend your own funds 

now your wife has to close all her joint accounts with her frinds to re-agregate the funds into your joint account. and you then have to re-agregrate your account with the coffee shop so that you have funds if you ever want coffee for yourself.

in short.. look passed the utopia of the white paper. and actually run scenarios

a few people that dont want to run a node and learn command lines. can do it simple with a few boxes of matches. or even pen and paper

[franky1]

bitcoin original ethos/purpose.. electronic cash, the borderless, open, payment system

then comes along people who are most definetly more fans of core/blockstream than bitcoin..

No one forces you to use Bitcoin, so if you believe that an altcoin serves you in a better way, then definitely go for it.

translation:
if you dont like core/blockstreams roadmap that has screwed bitcoin.. go F off

[pooya87]

No one forces you to use Bitcoin, so if you believe that an altcoin serves you in a better way, then definitely go for it.

translation:
if you dont like core/blockstreams roadmap that has screwed bitcoin.. go F off

you call it "F off", i call it a free market where everyone is free to choose whatever they want. i also like Nano and a couple of other coins that i won't name because i don't want to shove it down others throat! and i don't have any delusions about any altcoins and what their shortcomings are...
the problem with topics like this is that they almost always are created because of some altcoin advertisement or pump. people naming these coins never even use them outside of exchanges and they still compare them with bitcoin as a currency!

[jseverson]

I don't think Bitcoin needs lightning, I believe bitcoin is specializing in high-value asset store rather than in the everyday coin in your pocket, and I'd rather use altcoins than patch bitcoin with lightning to make it work.

That's not what Bitcoin was intended for though. And if you could enjoy the best of both worlds, why won't you? You're also free to use it as you see fit while others try to figure out how to make it scale, of course.

I don't know if Lightning is the answer yet, as it seems overly complicated for the regular user. It's not the be-all and end-all of Bitcoin either, contrary to what people may lead you to believe, so it doesn't have to be. If it doesn't work, something else will.

[ChiBitCTy]

I’ve shared this article a 1000 times and will probably a 1000 times more- this is a very easy read that a very knowledgeable buddy wrote that simplifies how the LN works (as well as point out why it makes sense). Let’s also not forget the LN is just being implemented and no major wallets have even installed it as far as I know ..there’s plenty of positive ahead

https://medium.com/@melik_87377/lightning-network-enables-unicast-transactions-in-bitcoin-lightning-is-bitcoins-tcp-ip-stack-8ec1d42c14f5

[malikusama]

I don't think Bitcoin needs lightning,

We need it at this time because it will surely resolve scalability issues which we are facing now.
However Lightning Network is not the ultimate solution because it doesn't support high amount transactions due to the limit of the funds on your channel network.

LN really seem like a monkey patch -

Unfair to call it a monkey patch because it will going to resolve maximum of the problems currently present in the existing network.

[Indrawan77]

Yes we need the lighning, it maybe not the answer we are looking for but at least it can help btc to move forward, btc was created as a currency not a trading token or an asset, so no matter what, we need to make btc as a currency, and with that reason we need the lightning network to faster the process, with lightning network working perfectly we will see more success in bitcoin

[Kakmakr]

Thanks for the links - super interesting!

Why does Bitcoin need to scale to VISA scale? I do believe Bitcoin has a role to play for higher value transaction at smaller frequency.

LN really seem like a monkey patch - I can see how they seem interesting, but I'd rather use an altcoin (Nano for instance) than throw my coins on lightning.

Bitcoin <according to the White paper> is a alternative "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" So if you want to provide a global cash system, you have to be able to scale to the levels of other systems that are providing global payment networks. The only other global payment networks that we can use as a comparison is the likes of VISA / MasterCard / PayPal and such.

How many merchants accepts Nano as a payment option? <compared to Bitcoin> I hope this answers your questions.