Is the Lightning Network centralized?

[DooMAD]

required at the least to report as a money transmitter at worst as a banking institution.
The expenses for these will make it so very few actually run a hub once enforcement of the AML/KYC regulations begin.

You sound like a flat-earther or anti-vaxxer.  Tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist type.  Repeating the same unfounded, delusional, reductive reasoning because you have no substantiative arguments.  You can say it as many times as you like, but it's no more likely to occur than KYC/AML for on-chain nodes.  You're still enabling payments to be processed by validating them if you run a full node.  In which case, BCH will come to an end before LN, because LN has more nodes than BCH and will be more difficult to pursue.  Clearly every single person running a Lightning node right now thinks you're talking nonsense, otherwise they wouldn't be running one.

Reports suggest that something like 20% of all internet activity is related to piracy and no regulators have managed to stop that yet.  They'll have the same or less success with Lightning, since I get the impression that torrenting is easier to monitor than the act of signing transactions is.  If you torrent without a proxy or VPN, there are websites that can tell you how many files you've downloaded, but there's no way of recording how many Lightning transactions you've sent or received, because that information isn't public.  I wish the regulators the best of luck, they're going to need it.

LOL,
You don't read much about the US Laws , do you?

Be sure to post what prison, they send you too and I will mail you a cake with a file in it.  

And in the equally unlikely scenario they criminalise being an absolute imbecile on the internet, we won't even do that for you.

[1714062104]

1714062104

[1714062104]

1714062104

[1714062104]

1714062104

[1714062104]

1714062104

[1714062104]

1714062104

[1714062104]

1714062104

[Abiky]

Lightning Network will be centralized.
Whether or not that dooms it has yet to be seem , but it will be no different than a Centralized Banking System.

As far a LN fees being cheap, it has not even begun to be used, so the promise of cheap fees may be exaggerated and proved to be false as usage increases.
LN is also a variable fee structure as such as it use increases so too will their fees. 

Bitcoin core transaction fees were cheap , but they increased in time , odds are so will LN's fees.

That's certainly true, mate. LN can increase in fees if usage increases over time. It'll be the same way as before, with the block size limitation. However, in terms of centralization, then it is up to question, since such solution (Lightning Network) is a layer-two solution which doesn't affect Bitcoin's main chain. Even if LN were to fail, Bitcoin's main chain will still work accordingly, in a decentralized fashion.

Therefore, I would consider the Lightning Network a semi-decentralized solution, since it doesn't affect Bitcoin's decentralization (as its separate from the main chain), but it has some level of centralization in the way channels are opened and closed, mostly by wealthy individuals. There could be some point where banks, and big exchanges will be capable of opening/closing channels, making the Lightning Network a system of trust. This might change though, if people choose other channels and/or LN nodes that are operated by individuals instead of big corporations, or financial institutions. Despite this, it will also be possible to transact on Bitcoin's main chain, for further security.

One big question that I have, is how would the Lightning Network be as secure as Bitcoin's main chain, considering it's an off-chain solution? I think that it could be easy for a hacker to easily perform double-spending on LN, right? This has brought up a lot of confusion to me, and I'm still trying to figure it out when reading the whitepaper.

first of all if you don't use the space then creating it is pointless. it is like buying an airplane to go to your job which is 1 block away from your house!
secondly when you open up space (32MB) you are making spam attacks easy. it doesn't  cost anything to fill these 32 MB blocks and cause havoc.
thirdly you are not just a leach, as a contributing node you want to connect to different nodes and send/receive blocks and transactions. this means downloading and uploading. your monthly traffic is going to be ridiculously huge. check out Shorena's node status here, you will see very interesting stats. he is already spending 1-2 TB traffic per month.
finally it has never been just about the size. the problem is Zin-Zang doesn't understand anything about bitcoin. you are not  downloading a file. you are downloading a block. which means you download the blocks, verify each transaction and then add it to your blockchain. that verification is the bottleneck.

Yeah. Having a huge block size is very bad for any cryptocurrency nowadays. It increases the level of spam attacks on the network and increases centralization as storage and bandwidth costs increase over time. As such, less nodes would be able to maintain the network, as most people won't be able to cover such high costs. The real deal, as you said earlier, is the verification process. Since the blockchain requires every single node available on the network, to process every transaction, it adds a lot of data, making it impractical to scale, especially with a huge block size like 32mb.

While Bitcoin Cash's 32mb blocks hasn't been filled yet, they could in the future, making this cryptocurrency extremely centralized in contrast to the original Bitcoin. Therefore, even if Bitcoin's block size is extremely limited, it's a good thing since it makes spam attacks expensive and allows Bitcoin to stay as decentralized as possible. Just my opinion

[Zin-Zang]

required at the least to report as a money transmitter at worst as a banking institution.
The expenses for these will make it so very few actually run a hub once enforcement of the AML/KYC regulations begin.

You sound like a flat-earther or anti-vaxxer.  Tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist type.  Repeating the same unfounded, delusional, reductive reasoning because you have no substantiative arguments.  You can say it as many times as you like, but it's no more likely to occur than KYC/AML for on-chain nodes.  You're still enabling payments to be processed by validating them if you run a full node.  In which case, BCH will come to an end before LN, because LN has more nodes than BCH and will be more difficult to pursue.  Clearly every single person running a Lightning node right now thinks you're talking nonsense, otherwise they wouldn't be running one.

Reports suggest that something like 20% of all internet activity is related to piracy and no regulators have managed to stop that yet.  They'll have the same or less success with Lightning, since I get the impression that torrenting is easier to monitor than the act of signing transactions is.  If you torrent without a proxy or VPN, there are websites that can tell you how many files you've downloaded, but there's no way of recording how many Lightning transactions you've sent or received, because that information isn't public.  I wish the regulators the best of luck, they're going to need it.

Were you born that stupid or do you have to work at it?  

https://coinidol.com/bitcoin-exchanges-must-comply-with-us-laws/

https://kyc360.com/article/compliance-kyc-link-exchanges-banks-mass-adoption-bitcoin/

Bitcoin exchanges, miners, and cryptocurrency-
payment processors, operating in the United States are required to comply with federal Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws.

That means a cryptocurrency user can be prosecuted for violating a number of federal laws.
Anybody who converts BTC to USD and sends the money to or from the United States must comply with all AML laws and regulations.

Such laws and regulations are imposed by the U.S. Treasury Department affiliate, FinCEN.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is in charge of enforcing the policies and regulations, which serve as a security measure for conducting any financial activity within the U.S. borders.

All money service businesses, including Bitcoin exchanges, come within the provisions of these laws and guarantee a strong bank secrecy, as well as money laundering control.
In the case a financial organization fails to abide by the policy, FinCEN is entitled to recourse through competent legal authorities like the FBI or the U.S. Secret Service.

According to the U.S. Government,
digital currency trading is regarded as electronic money transfer, and thus cryptocurrency exchanges need to follow Anti-Money Laundering laws.
That means any business that engages in bitcoin or ethereum mining, money transfers, trading or currency exchanges will need to file the appropriate paperwork via BSA E-Filing

** If your hub processes a transaction where you send LN funds overseas and at the end ,
when those LN funds are redeem for bitcoin and those bitcoins are exchanged to fiat or physical items,
then you just became a money launder according to US Law. **
Do I agree with this insane authority the world governments have given themselves , hell no,
but I do recognize it will get someone throw in jail for ignoring them, answer is yes.

Next you say, you hide your IP address, with tor.
Tor has been compromised for years, the US Navy was the original designers and only released it after realizing all of the ways to bypass it.
But good luck trying.  
You should start looking for a lawyer now and start a payment plan for when they bust up in your living room.
 

FYI:
That other LN hub might be the FBI recording your transactions for their appending arrest warrant.
They do shit like that all of the time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/us/more-federal-agencies-are-using-undercover-operations.html

[Wind_FURY]

LN Hubs will be required at the least to report as a money transmitter at worst as a banking institution.
The expenses for these will make it so very few actually run a hub once enforcement of the AML/KYC regulations begin.

What "LN hubs"? We have Bitcoin wallet services like blockchain.info that do not require their users to verify their identities.
Plus what if I run a Lightning node and many users happen to connect to me? "I will not enforce AML/KYC" will be my LN node name. Hahaha.

LOL,
You don't read much about the US Laws , do you?

Be sure to post what prison, they send you too and I will mail you a cake with a file in it.  

And no it won't matter if you are not a US Citizen, if the US Gov can force the Swiss banks to comply, your resistance will be meager at best.
Good Luck with that LN hub.  

FYI:
When you ask your Cell Mate's Name and he says Ben Over, that is not his name!  

There are 7,000 Lightning nodes. I want you to report all of them because they are not KYC/AML compliant and yet they are routing payments across the globe. If you want to go deeper, you can also report Bitcoin's full validating nodes. Haha.

[Zin-Zang]

There are 7,000 Lightning nodes. I want you to report all of them because they are not KYC/AML compliant and yet they are routing payments across the globe. If you want to go deeper, you can also report Bitcoin's full validating nodes. Haha.

Has it gone live yet and actually transferring funds, because last I heard it was unsafe to use and the devs were saying no one should use it.
Those 7000 nodes aren't transferring much of anything yet are they?
Threshold is usually around $10000 US  before they start going after people.

I'll shoot you a PM , after the arrests on LN Hub operators start showing up in the news.  

FYI: In The Meantime:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/las-vegas-resident-accused-of-bitcoin-money-laundering/
https://www.coindesk.com/michigan-man-charged-unlawful-bitcoin-exchange/


 

[Wind_FURY]

There are 7,000 Lightning nodes. I want you to report all of them because they are not KYC/AML compliant and yet they are routing payments across the globe. If you want to go deeper, you can also report Bitcoin's full validating nodes. Haha.

Has it gone live yet and actually transferring funds, because last I heard it was unsafe to use and the devs were saying no one should use it.

It is live and there are users doing small - medium transactions to buy stickers, shirts, etc. Plus there are now apps made for Lightning. Try this, https://satoshis.place/

Those 7000 nodes aren't transferring much of anything yet are they?
Threshold is usually around $10000 US  before they start going after people.

I believe there are many nodes that have done more than $10,000 in routing.

I'll shoot you a PM , after the arrests start showing up in the news.  

That will not happen. Haha.

FYI: In The Meantime:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/las-vegas-resident-accused-of-bitcoin-money-laundering/
https://www.coindesk.com/michigan-man-charged-unlawful-bitcoin-exchange/

Old news, and that never stopped Bitcoin. I want to see arrests for running Lightning nodes and Bitcoin full nodes because they are not KYC/AML compliant.

[bitfocus]

As far I know (from docs) the lightning network is not centralized.

[franky1]

arguing about AML/KYC in LN is right now empty argument..
but what people on both sides to defending offending the devs dont realise is that LN is NOT a service solely to be used by bitcoin.

as soon as the FIAT hubs start atomic swapping for btc on LN then you will see the AML/KYC compliance issues

yep when the 'decentralised exchanges' start operating. then you will see all the other BSCartel services start making their money.. EG Civic with thier admin fee for ID registration/checks. circle,coinbase,and other exchanges taking fee's and ... requiring ID

again LN is not a pure BTC network. its a offchain service to atomically swap between currncies and its been the gameplan since before 2015 to earn the BSCartel millions.

ever thought why rusty russel and sipa were getting millions of dollars if all they were doing was coding for bitcoin community,
(blockstream has ovr $100m and less than 100 employee's so ach guy linked to Blockstream has over $1m)
reality is that all the development is being pushed to make services to make returns on dev investment back to the BSCartel (barry silbert doesnt run a charity, he wants returns eventually)

P.S
if you think devs are interested in making transactions cheaper onchain. or have a cheap tx system. please refrain from replying
 just look at whats happened
bitcoin core price october 2017 ~$6000  ... min dust tx  limit 1000byte =6cents min to have tx happily relayed #
bitcoin core price june 2018 ~$6000  ... min dust tx  limit 3000byte =18cents to have tx happily relayed  #

funny thing is after october the price increased. but did the november or the january code releases DROP limits to compensate the value change.. nope they infact increased the dust, not decreased.thus double whammy (facepalm)

[hv_]

As far I know (from docs) the lightning network is not centralized.

The static snap shot is not of help.

Dynamics are important together with economical attractors - > these are always leading to centralization.

Only external factors like op-risks can break these up, like PoW has plenty of.

[Zin-Zang]

Old news, and that never stopped Bitcoin. I want to see arrests for running Lightning nodes and Bitcoin full nodes because they are not KYC/AML compliant.

People running full nodes have nothing to worry about as they are only keeping a ledger of public information.
They are not sending any funds.  AML/KYC laws can not touch them.

LN Hubs on the other hand will facilitate fund transfers using their own note system like a bank allowing redemption in bitcoin
or as Franky1 said another crypto or eventually even fiat.


Two completely different things.   

[DooMAD]

Were you born that stupid or do you have to work at it?[/color]  

https://coinidol.com/bitcoin-exchanges-must-comply-with-us-laws/

https://kyc360.com/article/compliance-kyc-link-exchanges-banks-mass-adoption-bitcoin/

Bitcoin exchanges, miners, and cryptocurrency-
payment processors, operating in the United States are required to comply with federal Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws.

That means a cryptocurrency user can be prosecuted for violating a number of federal laws.
Anybody who converts BTC to USD and sends the money to or from the United States must comply with all AML laws and regulations.

Such laws and regulations are imposed by the U.S. Treasury Department affiliate, FinCEN.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is in charge of enforcing the policies and regulations, which serve as a security measure for conducting any financial activity within the U.S. borders.

All money service businesses, including Bitcoin exchanges, come within the provisions of these laws and guarantee a strong bank secrecy, as well as money laundering control.
In the case a financial organization fails to abide by the policy, FinCEN is entitled to recourse through competent legal authorities like the FBI or the U.S. Secret Service.

According to the U.S. Government,
digital currency trading is regarded as electronic money transfer, and thus cryptocurrency exchanges need to follow Anti-Money Laundering laws.
That means any business that engages in bitcoin or ethereum mining, money transfers, trading or currency exchanges will need to file the appropriate paperwork via BSA E-Filing

Yes, you cretin, that much is obvious.  No one is unclear on that.  Now let it sink in to your empty head that wording applies to ALL cryptocurrency transactions.  Not just Lightning ones.  Thank you for yet again completely failing to make a relevant point.  If regulators had their way, every on-chain transaction would be subject to KYC/AML.  But they can't practically enforce it.  So it's not an issue.  Same with Lightning.  Same applies to large, physical cash transactions out there in the real world.  You can't realistically monitor them all.

Learn to brain plz.  

People running full nodes have nothing to worry about as they are only keeping a ledger of public information.
They are not sending any funds.  AML/KYC laws can not touch them.

LN Hubs on the other hand will facilitate fund transfers using their own note system like a bank allowing redemption in bitcoin
or as Franky1 said another crypto or eventually even fiat.


Two completely different things.  

But as soon as you send a transaction for a substantial sum, even on chain, that should bring the regulators sniffing.  Don't try to crawl out of the corner you've painted yourself into, you'll only look like more of a fool than you already do.  

If you're using Lightning to send millions of dollars, or whatever, then sure, you might conceivably have the tiniest hint of a point.  Watch your back, they're probably coming for you. 
Doing your weekly grocery shopping with Lightning once that level of adoption is commonplace?  No issues whatsoever.  Now stop talking crap.

[Zin-Zang]

@DooMAD

I take it back, you were born that stupid.

I shall leave you to your false religious beliefs.
Logic and reason have no place in your mind.

Have a great day dumbo.  

[Wind_FURY]

arguing about AML/KYC in LN is right now empty argument..
but what people on both sides to defending offending the devs dont realise is that LN is NOT a service solely to be used by bitcoin.

It might also be that there is no argument worth doing in the first place.

as soon as the FIAT hubs start atomic swapping for btc on LN then you will see the AML/KYC compliance issues

There might be, but it might also be a demonstration of the disruptive nature of Bitcoin and decentralization. Was it not that that attracted us to be here?

yep when the 'decentralised exchanges' start operating. then you will see all the other BSCartel services start making their money.. EG Civic with thier admin fee for ID registration/checks. circle,coinbase,and other exchanges taking fee's and ... requiring ID

There will always be business men who will fill the gap and offer services for profit. It is the business men that are building around Bitcoin today.

again LN is not a pure BTC network. its a offchain service to atomically swap between currncies and its been the gameplan since before 2015 to earn the BSCartel millions.

Yet the blockchain is unaffected by this.

ever thought why rusty russel and sipa were getting millions of dollars if all they were doing was coding for bitcoin community,
(blockstream has ovr $100m and less than 100 employee's so ach guy linked to Blockstream has over $1m)
reality is that all the development is being pushed to make services to make returns on dev investment back to the BSCartel (barry silbert doesnt run a charity, he wants returns eventually)

P.S
if you think devs are interested in making transactions cheaper onchain. or have a cheap tx system. please refrain from replying
 just look at whats happened
bitcoin core price october 2017 ~$6000  ... min dust tx  limit 1000byte =6cents min to have tx happily relayed #
bitcoin core price june 2018 ~$6000  ... min dust tx  limit 3000byte =18cents to have tx happily relayed  #

funny thing is after october the price increased. but did the november or the january code releases DROP limits to compensate the value change.. nope they infact increased the dust, not decreased.thus double whammy (facepalm)

More tinfoil hat theories. Bitcoin is controlled by the Bilderberg group. Hahaha.

[d5000]

Ah, the good ol' discussion. And I see arguments haven't changed in the past year

I believe the Lightning Network will surely have some centralizing incentives. But that does not mean that the whole system will be centralized. For me, it will be a mix of hubs (commercial ones and altruist ones) and decentralized routing happily coexisting. After all, LN (like every cryptocurrency!) is a social network, it's a network of individuals, and they decide how to build it up.

Therefore, I would consider the Lightning Network a semi-decentralized solution, since it doesn't affect Bitcoin's decentralization (as its separate from the main chain), but it has some level of centralization in the way channels are opened and closed, mostly by wealthy individuals.

Have you seen the Channels Factories proposal (Whitepaper)? In short, CFs are single channels opened between multiple parties (up to 15 with the current limitations of Bitcoin Core, but afaik many more if Schnorr signatures are implemented). Members of such a group can open sub-channels at no cost to the other members of the group, and transact freely.

That has two advantages:
- first, you have to pay only one transaction fee for all the 15 individuals to open or close the channel. The transaction is bigger, so the transaction fee will also be bigger, but the fee per individual node would be >5 times lower.
- second, you can integrate a well-connected node (a little hub, for example) into the group, to be able to recharge channels that get "out of balance". That would mean that there will be very few necessary on-chain transactions.

So CFs could be an interesting part of the puzzle to avoid the scenario that "only wealthy individuals and businesses" could afford to open channels. Instead, you would open a channel factory with your friends, some merchant(s) you regularly visit and perhaps one exchange to re-charge the channel in an off-chain manner if necessary.

There could be some point where banks, and big exchanges will be capable of opening/closing channels, making the Lightning Network a system of trust. This might change though, if people choose other channels and/or LN nodes that are operated by individuals instead of big corporations, or financial institutions. Despite this, it will also be possible to transact on Bitcoin's main chain, for further security.

Exactly! There will be no mandatory route. Everything is possible. Let's wait and see. I think LN will be an excellent micropayment network, but not necessarily will replace on-chain transactions completely.

One big question that I have, is how would the Lightning Network be as secure as Bitcoin's main chain, considering it's an off-chain solution? I think that it could be easy for a hacker to easily perform double-spending on LN, right? This has brought up a lot of confusion to me, and I'm still trying to figure it out when reading the whitepaper.

As LN transactions are "private", but regular Bitcoin transactions, they cannot be double-spent easily. I don't know if a large LN channel, however, could incentive a Bitcoin double spend attack.

[DooMAD]

@DooMAD

I take it back, you were born that stupid.

I shall leave you to your false religious beliefs.
Logic and reason have no place in your mind.

Have a great day dumbo.  

Not hearing an argument presented there, so thank you for conceding defeat.  Regulators will likely attempt to chase down excessively large on-chain payments that might look suspicious, because those are quite easily viewable and plainly understood.  You know beyond doubt exactly how much was sent and when.  So if the authorities can figure out who sent/received those amounts, they at least have a small chance of success there.  It's easier to obtain a warrant, for example, if you already have the evidence that a large sum of money has changed hands.  If you can see it right there on the blockchain, it's easier to prove.

They'll struggle to do that with Lightning, however, since there's no way of knowing exactly how much has been sent.  You might be able to tell how much total BTC is in a channel, but that's not the same as knowing how much is being sent back and forth.  See if you can tell me exactly how many mainnet LN transactions have been sent to date.  It's only been running on mainnet for less than a year, should be easy, right?  Wrong.  You can easily tell how many on-chain transactions have been sent since the genesis block, because the information is there for all to see.  Totally transparent.  Can't do it with Lightning, though.  You can't regulate something you can't even see.  Thinking you can is beyond naive.  Learn it already.  It's not that difficult.

You can't realistically monitor LN transactions unless law enforcement already have the intended target under close surveillance, have cameras on them 24/7 and bugged their house and all their electronic devices.  In which case, I should add, it doesn't even matter which medium you're using to transact, they already know you've done something wrong.  Those are pretty much the only people with something to worry about.  But none of this will apply to casual, everyday users, going about their ordinary lives, buying regular stuff.

In the same way governments have only managed to extract tax revenues from crypto users who have freely volunteered that information, the same will apply to KYC/AML in Lightning.  A tiny number might volunteer for it and the authorities will appreciate that, because they know they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of monitoring the other 99.9%.  But those tiny number won't get much traffic.  Users will naturally want instant transactions, not wait a week while they send off ID and wait for verification.

And stop comparing exchanges with Lightning.  They're entirely different things.  Not even remotely comparable, unless you're some sort of idiot.  Exchanges are static entities and deal with potentially massive sums of money.  That's their entire business model.  They're an easy target in plain sight.  It's not difficult to ensure they comply with regulations because they're relatively easy to shut down.  LN hubs aren't so unwieldy.  Remember that LN is currently capped at a maximum of 0.16777216 BTC in each channel and 0.04194304 for each transaction.  We aren't talking about particularly large sums of money here.  Plus, if you really don't want to be found, all it takes is some reallocation of funds, a quick change of some technical details, a bit of mixing for good measure, and *poof*, gone.  Little to no trace.  A fresh bunch of channels opened and no one is any the wiser.  It's going to be regulatory whack-a-mole if they tried to come after LN hubs.  

If you ever feel the desire to gain some practical understanding about how LN works, rather than just listening to what a bunch of brainwashed zealots are telling you and then repeating it like a lowly pawn, then you might fare a little better in future.  But for now, you clearly demonstrate barely any working knowledge and are easily shot down for the ignorant troll you are.  Any more insanity you'd like to present us with?

[Abiky]

As far I know (from docs) the lightning network is not centralized.

Well, I consider the Lightning Network somewhat centralized simply because you're going to need to trust LN nodes on the network to route your payments. Not to mention, not everyone will be able to open/close channels on the network, allowing only banks and wealthy institutions to operate LN nodes. And if governments start to apply AML/KYC regulations to such nodes, then there would be no use for the Lightning Network since people would need to verify their ID to be able to use such feature.

Eventually, I believe that Bitcoin will become extremely centralized as people would prefer to transact on the Lightning Network (which is an off-chain solution) over the main chain. Then, there's the issue of miners where they won't be able to claim the block reward if people transact only on the LN, leaving the main chain behind. As such, with the Lightning Network, there would be no incentives for miners, further threatening the security of the Bitcoin network itself. Only time will tell whenever LN becomes successful or not. 

[matthewoz101]

As long as the fees remain low, I don't think it will become centralized due to the nature.

[Glydel1999]

Actually the cryptocurrency is a centralized network wherein it helps the people and the society and the government itself become united and more systematic than before which is a big helps.

[Wind_FURY]

As far I know (from docs) the lightning network is not centralized.

Well, I consider the Lightning Network somewhat centralized simply because you're going to need to trust LN nodes on the network to route your payments. Not to mention, not everyone will be able to open/close channels on the network, allowing only banks and wealthy institutions to operate LN nodes.

Who said that? Is this a network of banks and wealthy institutions? https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/ - The Lightning Network is live.

Stop the FUD. The Lightning Network has more nodes maintained by users than Bitcoin Cash.

And if governments start to apply AML/KYC regulations to such nodes, then there would be no use for the Lightning Network since people would need to verify their ID to be able to use such feature.

"If". That is the biggest distinction. Why not start enforcing KYC/AML on the miners? They "process" transactions onchain, correct?

Eventually, I believe that Bitcoin will become extremely centralized as people would prefer to transact on the Lightning Network (which is an off-chain solution) over the main chain.

Centralized how? Explain it.

Then, there's the issue of miners where they won't be able to claim the block reward if people transact only on the LN, leaving the main chain behind. As such, with the Lightning Network, there would be no incentives for miners, further threatening the security of the Bitcoin network itself. Only time will tell whenever LN becomes successful or not. 

In theory yes. But let us see how that turns out.

[DooMAD]

As far I know (from docs) the lightning network is not centralized.

Well, I consider the Lightning Network somewhat centralized simply because you're going to need to trust LN nodes on the network to route your payments.

People often seem to conflate trust with centralisation.  They're different concepts.  LN is undoubtedly a different trust model to regular, on-chain, Bitcoin transactions, but that doesn't mean it's centralised.  It's still a peer-to-peer network.  There's no central authority making stuff happen.  

Not to mention, not everyone will be able to open/close channels on the network, allowing only banks and wealthy institutions to operate LN nodes.

Yeah, I'm as confused by this point as Wind-FURY, you're going to have to explain how you've arrived at that conclusion.  If anything, Lightning is better suited to small payments than it is large ones.  At the time of writing, the most you can send in a single payment is ~$280 USD.  Literally the only thing stopping people from running LN nodes is that they don't understand it yet.  You don't have to be wealthy to do that (although, obviously you have to have some funds).  And you certainly don't have to be a bank.  Once you have more knowledge, you can take part and open/close as many channels as you wish.