Lightning’s Bitcoin mainnet: the phenomenal growth

[franky1]

more social drama rants from windfury about believe personality a or personality B.
pretty shameful he misses the point of DYOR(do your own research)

if only he spent more time researching and less time just naming names to follow/avoid. he too would know more about bitcoin and less about social drama

that said.
lightning hasnt grown much due to real utility/adoption. its justmore sybill stats just to try faming it up for sponsorship

[Wind_FURY]

more social drama rants from windfury about believe personality a or personality B.
pretty shameful he misses the point of DYOR(do your own research)

if only he spent more time researching and less time just naming names to follow/avoid. he too would know more about bitcoin and less about social drama

No more drama. I WANT the newbies to believe in you. I WANT the newbies to take everything you post as "simply the truth".

The irony is you want them to "DYOR".

that said.
lightning hasnt grown much due to real utility/adoption. its justmore sybill stats just to try faming it up for sponsorship

Ok, your opinion, but should that stop the LN developers from developing what they want? Why?

[franky1]

more social drama rants from windfury about believe personality a or personality B.
pretty shameful he misses the point of DYOR(do your own research)

if only he spent more time researching and less time just naming names to follow/avoid. he too would know more about bitcoin and less about social drama

No more drama. I WANT the newbies to believe in you. I WANT the newbies to take everything you post as "simply the truth".
The irony is you want them to "DYOR".

that said.
lightning hasnt grown much due to real utility/adoption. its justmore sybill stats just to try faming it up for sponsorship

Ok, your opinion, but should that stop the LN developers from developing what they want? Why?

seems you believe in "trust" of third parties too much. i believe in self control.
meaning all them influencers who spam about how great LN is without actually using it, are putting the people that 'trust' them at a disloyal position of believing in something due to social drama rather than factual things.

its way better people pull their socks up and do their own research and actually try things at low/limited risk or atleast learn about things, run scenario's before promoting/using it at full risk

LN has been buzzworded about for atleast 3 years. and still it is not ready to do what was promoted. thus it has delayed any bitcoin progress because bitcoin devs are waiting for LN instead of innovating bitcoin. thus putting a disadvantage on bitcoin and holding it back.

the more people know that LN is not as advertised the more we would hopefully get pressure on devs to get back to innovating bitcoin and seeing LN as just a side service and not as 'the solution'.. because even after 4-10 years LN wont achieve its goals realistically. thus this wasted time is just benefiting no one.

LN devs should carry on with thier side service if they want. but having bitcoin devs sitting on their hands and promoting LN as the roadmap forward benefits no one

[ZloiRediska]

I also believe that the full implementation of this technology should take at least 4-5 years. Then we can draw some conclusions. It is too early to talk about the pros and cons.

[DooMAD]

thus it has delayed any bitcoin progress because bitcoin devs are waiting for LN instead of innovating bitcoin. thus putting a disadvantage on bitcoin and holding it back.

No one group is capable of "holding it back".  If you believed one group were able to control Bitcoin in such a way, surely you would just admit to yourself that Bitcoin had failed and move on to another coin.  Bitcoin was designed in a way that it wasn't susceptible to co-option, so if what you say is true, then it sounds like we should scrap the whole idea and go back to the drawing board, because it hasn't worked.

That is, of course, assuming anyone actually believed that devs were holding Bitcoin back.   

[franky1]

thus it has delayed any bitcoin progress because bitcoin devs are waiting for LN instead of innovating bitcoin. thus putting a disadvantage on bitcoin and holding it back.

No one group is capable of "holding it back".  If you believed one group were able to control Bitcoin in such a way, surely you would just admit to yourself that Bitcoin had failed and move on to another coin.  Bitcoin was designed in a way that it wasn't susceptible to co-option, so if what you say is true, then it sounds like we should scrap the whole idea and go back to the drawing board, because it hasn't worked.

That is, of course, assuming anyone actually believed that devs were holding Bitcoin back.  

bitcoin is not an AI of self writing code. it requires devs to write code to progress bitcoin or to not progress it by them devs not innovating bitcoin.

one group of devs are holding it back, even YOU admit one group dominate the codebase

YOU have been the one excited that core can code what they like
YOU have been the one excited that core can implement mandatory activations as they 'dont need permission'
YOU have been the one also highlighting that now core is dominant there is no need for community vote(consensus)
YOU have been loud about how bitcoin is not a democracy
YOU have been the one that loved that they banned nodes (example: using version bits 6 and
YOU have been the one that after all the apartheid tricks implemented by said group that bitcoin is now core dominant brand where other nodes are just 'compatible'(not part of the main relay/protocol)

you pretend the network is diverse(flip) and open to other brands but as soon as other brands want to change the rules YOU see them as attackers(flop)

you can try pulling out your social drama quotes where you flip. but you also have you flop quotes too saying the exact opposite

its this group that made the 'roadmap' in december 2015 and have been following it like sheep for 3.3years now where the only main changes to bitcoin were to make bitcoin LN compatible

[Wind_FURY]

more social drama rants from windfury about believe personality a or personality B.
pretty shameful he misses the point of DYOR(do your own research)

if only he spent more time researching and less time just naming names to follow/avoid. he too would know more about bitcoin and less about social drama

No more drama. I WANT the newbies to believe in you. I WANT the newbies to take everything you post as "simply the truth".
The irony is you want them to "DYOR".

that said.
lightning hasnt grown much due to real utility/adoption. its justmore sybill stats just to try faming it up for sponsorship

Ok, your opinion, but should that stop the LN developers from developing what they want? Why?

seems you believe in "trust" of third parties too much. i believe in self control.
meaning all them influencers who spam about how great LN is without actually using it, are putting the people that 'trust' them at a disloyal position of believing in something due to social drama rather than factual things.

its way better people pull their socks up and do their own research and actually try things at low/limited risk or atleast learn about things, run scenario's before promoting/using it at full risk

LN has been buzzworded about for atleast 3 years. and still it is not ready to do what was promoted. thus it has delayed any bitcoin progress because bitcoin devs are waiting for LN instead of innovating bitcoin. thus putting a disadvantage on bitcoin and holding it back.

the more people know that LN is not as advertised the more we would hopefully get pressure on devs to get back to innovating bitcoin and seeing LN as just a side service and not as 'the solution'.. because even after 4-10 years LN wont achieve its goals realistically. thus this wasted time is just benefiting no one.

LN devs should carry on with thier side service if they want. but having bitcoin devs sitting on their hands and promoting LN as the roadmap forward benefits no one

I believe you are trying too hard to discredit all the hard work the Lightning developers have done. Plus my debate was not about "trusting" third parties, it is "why should anyone remove anyone's ability to develop applications on top of Bitcoin that don't even alter anything in the consensus layer?"

If you don't want it, don't use it, or you can criticize it, but you have no right to impose your own opinion towards others.

[DooMAD]

even YOU admit one group dominate the codebase

One group dominates because the users run that code.  If users opted to run different code, obviously one group wouldn't dominate.  And the only response you have in your sad little arsenal is that all those users are sheep, but if they were sheep, they might believe the lies you're telling them.  So clearly they are capable of thinking for themselves.  Other dev groups need to step up their game and offer users something they might actually want.  You still think that users want larger blocks, but evidently you're wrong about that.  If people wanted that, they'd run code to make it happen.

YOU have been the one excited that core can code what they like

Prove to me that they can't.  You seem to be attributing some sort of moral implication to my words, as if it's somehow wrong or bad for me to say that.  You can call it right or wrong, but I'm just telling you how it is.  Any dev group can code what they like.  And I'll keep saying it.  Because it's the truth.  If I point that out that abundantly plain and clear truth, you have to recognise that's not something anyone can use to besmirch my character.  If anything, the opposite is true.  It tarnishes your character to say that Core can't code what they want.  That's simply not true.  If you say devs can't code what they want, then you are a liar (or possibly just an idiot, I still can't tell).

YOU have been the one excited that core can implement mandatory activations as they 'dont need permission'

Users ran the code, so the effects of the code are enforced whether you like it or not.  Again, this is a plain and simple fact that you cannot overcome.  It's your permission that isn't needed.  You don't matter.  Get over yourself.

YOU have been the one also highlighting that now core is dominant there is no need for community vote(consensus)

We already have consensus.  Every time the network churns out another block, we continue to have consensus.  If we did not have consensus, there would be forks.  Each of those forks can then form their own new consensus.  We don't need your consensus because you think consensus means "permission".  You genuinely believe you can sit there running different code and somehow prevent us from running the code we want to run.  It doesn't work like that.

YOU have been loud about how bitcoin is not a democracy

Because it isn't.  Democracies look like the never-ending Brexit shitshow.  You sound like Theresa May who wants MPs to vote on her crap proposal for the dozenth time and everyone has to play along with this total farce until they can reach agreement.  It's ridiculous.  In Bitcoin, we can simply ignore your crap proposals.  We don't have to give them a second thought.  We don't have to agree.  We can just leave you behind and move forward without the people who don't agree.  Again, prove to me I'm wrong about that.  You literally don't understand the first thing about Bitcoin because you just want some democracy/voting/permission bullshit.

YOU have been the one that loved that they banned nodes (example: using version bits 6 and

Disconnected.  Not banned.  Disconnected.  Stop lying.

YOU have been the one that after all the apartheid tricks implemented by said group that bitcoin is now core dominant brand where other nodes are just 'compatible'(not part of the main relay/protocol)

The fact that you would even dare to compare something as horrific as Apartheid to your butthurt over people running code you don't agree with just goes to show what an utterly reprehensible creature you are.  Please go to a country afflicted by Apartheid and compare the plight of those people with yours.  Go ahead and tell them how you perceive this supposed injustice of compatible nodes equal to the injustice they face in their daily lives.  You are disgusting.

the more people know that LN is not as advertised the more we would hopefully get pressure on devs to get back to innovating bitcoin and seeing LN as just a side service and not as 'the solution'.. because even after 4-10 years LN wont achieve its goals realistically. thus this wasted time is just benefiting no one.

LN devs should carry on with thier side service if they want. but having bitcoin devs sitting on their hands and promoting LN as the roadmap forward benefits no one

I believe you are trying too hard to discredit all the hard work the Lightning developers have done. Plus my debate was not about "trusting" third parties, it is "why should anyone remove anyone's ability to develop applications on top of Bitcoin that don't even alter anything in the consensus layer?"

If you don't want it, don't use it, or you can criticize it, but you have no right to impose your own opinion towards others.

But... but... but... democracy/voting/permission/etc?  

We all have to agree or no one can do it.  

You just need to research more.  

He's literally never going to get it.  At some point it's just going to reach the stage where someone changes his title to "wrong because franky1".

[Aikidoka]

I would like to point out and update the median transaction fees for 6 major cryptocurrency networks on April 24, 2018 for your reference:
BTC – median transaction fee: $0.653
ETH - median transaction fee: $0.106
EOS - median transaction fee: $0.0136
BCH - median transaction fee: $0.0057
TRON - median transaction fee: $0.0001
LTC - median transaction fee: $0.0561
Although there’re presently cheaper alternatives to BTC in terms of on-chain transaction, the L.N could empower payments much cheaper than what are offered by most of the altcoins. Moreover, as i would like to emphasize here, L.N can help transactions to be accepted as valid immediately without waiting for the verification of a new mined block

not everything is about fees and how much you pay, it is about security of the network and the coin that you are using too. otherwise there are free coins like NANO (old name RaiBlock) that don't even have a fee.

Indeed, people would like to pay using their crypto safely and without any worrying, and as you said, it's not about how much fees you should pay, so I think a lot of people who use cryptocurrecies are aiming to have more stable and fast transactions safely. In the market, there are a some cryptos which have so fast transactions (i.e: ripple), I just didn't know about NANO coins, that's seems so good if it haven't fee.

[franky1]

oh doomad
learn consensus
its a vote that everyone should be part of.
not where before the deadline a event occurs to dismiss an opposition to then fake majority
you really need to learn about real consensus and how the byzantine generals theory is solved (not bypassed)

then you will learn how core got control and learn why core are now holding bitcoin back with thier 'conservative' roadmap THEY(not the community) decided on. and how core believe LN is the solution and thus twiddling their thumbs.
the only main changes to bitcoin have been to make the gateway to the lightning network and to implement things to make bitcoin network less appealing to help promote LN even more

as for your other waffle defending cores actions to become dominant

1. core dominate not because all users/majority chose core. infact only 35% chose core.
core dominated because before the consensus, CORE implemented mandatory apartheid campaigns. i would say the word segregation, but you would get confused.
you again were completely excited and happy that core implemented the aparthied to get the VOTE COUNT needed to activate segwit

2. its not about writing code on napkins, github or as a tattoo on their arm. its about writing code that was designed to bypass consensus to trojan in segwit without needing wide community opt-in.
thats right the community didnt need to opt-in to get segwit activated. you know this (should you finally decide which flip or flop narrative you want to dedicate yourself to)
if any other brand wrote mandatory consensus bypass they would not get the same excitement from you. you would treat them as attackers and you would flip to argue that other brands should suddenly stick to just using consensus naturally.. thats the point you have brand bias. you dont care about the bitcoin network, your loyalty is to a dev group.

3. again users didnt need to run the software. even the devs will tell you about their 'inflight upgrades/compatibility and apartheid tricks. yes the core devs OWN fibre meaning they control the top of the relay layer tree that controls what gets relayd out from most pools. meaning by the time it reaches normal random nodes the data is already biasedy rejected/not relayed thus when normal random users get is already selective. same with the DNS seeds. core devs own and manage them too, so again controlling which new nodes are acceptable to the network for users to connect to. all without random users needing to independently do anything

4. again for emphases. if any other brand dared try the apartheid causing bans/rejects and disconnects you would be screaming REKT them, attack, trojan group

because core now dominate the network because opposition were thrown off (yep the opposition didnt give in and just stay on bitcoin) again for emphases. the opposition did not suddenly decide to support core.
but because the core devs pushed out part of the community. your waffle about how 'users chose to run core' holds no merit

now with all that said, now the network is core dominant core are following their roadmap of mainly playing with bitcoin just to make it LN compatible and doing what they can to make LN the network the community should us for daily spends.
oh as for your theresa may reference. it seems its you that loves the conservative buzzword.

now try to actually read what devs admit happened, check the blockdata, check the code. learn about the network and how core bypassed certain things to trojan in segwit to then get LN stepping forward.
oh and please dont flip flop. its not healthy for you and just makes you look foolish
EG flip bitcoin isnt democracy/consensus/voting
flop bitcoin neds users to run the code

reality. core didnt need majority users to run the code, they just needed to remove users not running the code and also control the data 'compatible' users received via fibre/dns seeds. the events of 2017 were not community led/controlled, but core controlled

[DooMAD]

*Assorted drivel*

So rather than even attempting to counter a single point I made, you just repeat all the same incorrect assertions and outright lies you've made dozens of times before in a slightly different way.  Your entire argument hinges on the absurd notion that nobody on the Bitcoin network likes what Core are doing, but still continue to run their code anyway.  You're insane.

You keep telling people that Bitcoin doesn't work in the way it clearly does and instead works in the way you imagine it does.  Then, at the same time, you somehow complain about the way in which Bitcoin does currently work (because it actually doesn't work like how you imagine) and why you think Bitcoin would be better if it did work the way you imagine.  It demonstrably doesn't work like you imagine and never will.  Now clean out the mess between your ears that you have the audacity to call a brain and get back to us when you have a clue.

[franky1]

*Assorted drivel*

So rather than even attempting to counter a single point I made, you just repeat all the same incorrect assertions and outright lies you've made dozens of times before in a slightly different way.  Your entire argument hinges on the absurd notion that nobody on the Bitcoin network likes what Core are doing, but still continue to run their code anyway.  You're insane.

You keep telling people that Bitcoin doesn't work in the way it clearly does and instead works in the way you imagine it does.  Then, at the same time, you somehow complain about the way in which Bitcoin does currently work (because it actually doesn't work like how you imagine) and why you think Bitcoin would be better if it did work the way you imagine.  It demonstrably doesn't work like you imagine and never will.  Now clean out the mess between your ears that you have the audacity to call a brain and get back to us when you have a clue.

go do some research. stop wearing the core defense cap. its not attractive on you

[buwaytress]

Woouldn't dare comment on ongoing discussions re Core and LN as I doubt I've got the technical balls for it, but I wonder if OP should update his statistics from little under a year ago. Would be really interesting to see a comparison of the past 12 months, against a backdrop of dipping confidence supposedly, and lowered hype surrounding Bitcoin.

From 1ML and from BitcoinVisuals:

Active channels: 38,694 (1ml) | 34,982 (BV) - about 400% YoY growth
Nodes with active channels: 4231 (1ml) | 4,191 (BV) - about 95% YoY
BTC Capacity: 1,063 (1ml) | 1,065 (BV). - about 10,000% YoY

Below quoted for reference:

Edit:
Active channels: 8433
Nodes: 2228
BTC capacity: 20.948

[franky1]

Woouldn't dare comment on ongoing discussions re Core and LN as I doubt I've got the technical balls for it, but I wonder if OP should update his statistics from little under a year ago. Would be really interesting to see a comparison of the past 12 months, against a backdrop of dipping confidence supposedly, and lowered hype surrounding Bitcoin.

From 1ML and from BitcoinVisuals:

Active channels: 38,694 (1ml) | 34,982 (BV) - about 400% YoY growth
Nodes with active channels: 4231 (1ml) | 4,191 (BV) - about 95% YoY
BTC Capacity: 1,063 (1ml) | 1,065 (BV). - about 10,000% YoY

Below quoted for reference:

Edit:
Active channels: 8433
Nodes: 2228
BTC capacity: 20.948

worth noting yet again
one group LGBIG have 42 nodes that have ~500 channels and 30btc capacity each
meaning if all LGBIG nodes wre online.. alone they would account for

~2100 channels
~1260 capacity
(yes i know they are not all online at the same time, but it just puts it into prospective how one group is sybilling the numbers)

[deisik]

This just shows you how high the demand is for cheap and fast global transactions. It is not unlikely that many of these channels are being run by the same people. The amazing thing for me is that despite the throttle and cap that are placed on amounts that can be used to fund these channels, people still use it for commercial payments

Well, we can't say that for sure

As there are no stats revealing if all or most of these payment channels are actually used for transacting and to what degree. Not to sound like a wet blanket or whatever, but at least some of these channels may be people just testing the waters. So unless we get solid data on real use of Lightning Network for value transfer (i.e. how much money actually gets sent via LN), the sheer number of active nodes and open payment channels doesn't tell us much on its own (this has been a matter of debate before)

60% of LN balance belongs to one entity

That proves the point

[buwaytress]

worth noting yet again
one group LGBIG have 42 nodes that have ~500 channels and 30btc capacity each
meaning if all LGBIG nodes wre online.. alone they would account for

~2100 channels
~1260 capacity
(yes i know they are not all online at the same time, but it just puts it into prospective how one group is sybilling the numbers)

Somewhat agree. It's not worth as much as it appears, that's something I can agree on. But it's not worth nothing. Bitcoin started from one node, and even when it grew ten times, it was probably 10 nodes that all at least knew each other, if not belonging to the same entity.

I know also that if I wanted to go online and look for LN-enabled services, I would be hardly spoilt for choice. So other than people carrying the torch and doing their best to push the numbers, actual stuff I could reliably use LN for still isn't here yet... but the point is, for someone like me, I didn't even think we'd get this far at this point of time.

[deisik]

I know also that if I wanted to go online and look for LN-enabled services, I would be hardly spoilt for choice. So other than people carrying the torch and doing their best to push the numbers, actual stuff I could reliably use LN for still isn't here yet... but the point is, for someone like me, I didn't even think we'd get this far at this point of time

I know what we need in order to push through

We just need the repetition of the dire situation which happened by the end of 2017 with people having to pay insane fees like 50 dollars per transaction. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention, and if we live up to that (again), people will quickly find LN quite useful and convenient which they refuse to do now simply because most are lazy and don't mind paying a little more at the moment (but 50 dollars would be over the edge, of course)

[franky1]

I know also that if I wanted to go online and look for LN-enabled services, I would be hardly spoilt for choice. So other than people carrying the torch and doing their best to push the numbers, actual stuff I could reliably use LN for still isn't here yet... but the point is, for someone like me, I didn't even think we'd get this far at this point of time

I know what we need in order to push through

We just need the repetition of the dire situation which happened by the end of 2017 with people having to pay insane fees like 50 dollars per transaction. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention, and if we live up to that (again), people will quickly find LN quite useful and convenient which they refuse to do now simply because most are lazy and don't mind paying a little more at the moment (but 50 dollars would be over the edge, of course)

people paying $50 wont
firstly those with fiat wont buy bitcoin to then open a channel to spend bitcoin. because its gonna cost them $50-$250 to set up LN(50 for one channel but upto $250 for multiple channels to have a somewhat modicum chance of payment route success)

people end up just ignoring bitcoin entirely and noticing they can use the same LN system but with litecoin or other coins for much cheaper.

infact people will start to think crypto in general should be avoided if it starts costing foolish amounts just to use it

[deisik]

I know also that if I wanted to go online and look for LN-enabled services, I would be hardly spoilt for choice. So other than people carrying the torch and doing their best to push the numbers, actual stuff I could reliably use LN for still isn't here yet... but the point is, for someone like me, I didn't even think we'd get this far at this point of time

I know what we need in order to push through

We just need the repetition of the dire situation which happened by the end of 2017 with people having to pay insane fees like 50 dollars per transaction. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention, and if we live up to that (again), people will quickly find LN quite useful and convenient which they refuse to do now simply because most are lazy and don't mind paying a little more at the moment (but 50 dollars would be over the edge, of course)

people paying $50 wont
firstly those with fiat wont buy bitcoin to then open a channel to spend bitcoin. because its gonna cost them $50-$250 to set up LN(50 for one channel but upto $250 for multiple channels to have a somewhat modicum chance of payment route success)

There's an age-old adage in the Russian language

Which essentially says that an expert is like a gumboil as his expertise is one-sided only. More specifically, you don't take into account the overall effects and consequences of the expansive LN application in a case like this. It would be like an avalanche or Ebola virus spreading exponentially and bringing fees down to their knees (again). We just need them to rise initially to start off this "resonance cascade" (a tipping point of sorts)

[naturerock]

Lightning network really is a work of art and people aren't being appreciative enough of all the hard work that went into it, this is a complete game changer for the bitcoin ecosystem.