A critique on the Lightning Network from a regular poster. Long.

[DannyHamilton]

Why would I do groceries with Bitcoin when I have fiat?

Why would you have fiat if you could do groceries with Bitcoin?

Why would I buy online with Bitcoin when I have fiat?

Why would you have fiat if you could buy online with Bitcoin?

As long as Bitcoin keeps going up, there's no point in spending it, unless completely needed.

As long as Bitcoin keeps going up, there's no point in having fiat, unless completely needed (such as situations where Bitcoin is not accepted).

EVERY time that you spend fiat on something, you are choosing to buy that thing INSTEAD of having bitcoin.  Therefore, you have that thing, and you have less bitcoin than you would have had.  That is NO DIFFERENT than if you had that same value in bitcoin instead of fiat, and then used bitcoin to buy the thing.

Every penny that you hold in fiat (because you need it for those merchants that don't accept bitcoin) is a penny that is being held in an inflationary and centralized currency instead of a deflationary and decentralized currency.  I want more merchants to accept bitcoin so that I don't need to hold as much value in worthless dollars.

[1713567860]

1713567860

[1713567860]

1713567860

[1713567860]

1713567860

[1713567860]

1713567860

[1713567860]

1713567860

[1713567860]

1713567860

[DevilOper]

Nobody is forcing you to use a specific hub, you can still open your own payment channels. This is not something that you can do with Banks. The Banks will not allow you to open your own direct payment channel to someone in another country.

Indeed you can open your own payment channel.
Indeed The Banks cannot disallow you to open your own direct payment channel to someone in another country.
To open an account with a bank in order to make any payment you have to deposit first something onto your account. And just a little more then half-century ago there was [mostly] no other way then put a cash.
And of course you were free to give that cash directy to someone in another country.

[DevilOper]

Why would I do groceries with Bitcoin when I have fiat?

Why would you have fiat if you could do groceries with Bitcoin?

Because it's guaranteed by the force of law (and law enforcement) to be a legal tender (at least within issuing country).

Why would I buy online with Bitcoin when I have fiat?

Why would you have fiat if you could buy online with Bitcoin?

The same as above.

[Wind_FURY]

remember its not
_______________________ 1
                   \__________  2
(2 unilaterally created an alt)

its not a
                    __________ 1
____________/__________ 2
(1 unilaterally created an alt)

its a
                   ___________ 1
___________/
                  \___________ 2
(1&2 bilateral split)..

Besides this, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3419499.msg36081326#msg36081326

I also want to talk about this confusion about what you say as a bilateral split that created "Bitcoin Core" and "Bitcoin Cash", because as far as everyone is concerned, except the Bitcoin Cash supporters, it was Bitcoin Cash that split away from the main chain.

This happened. Bitcoin Cash is an altcoin.   

_______________________ 1
                   \__________  2
(2 unilaterally created an alt)

It was Bitcoin Cash that changed the rules and forked away. Segwit is the real upgrade that has the support of the community and that was activated by the miners.

What Happened to Bitcoin?

The Bitcoin Core (BTC) network is in trouble due to high fees and slow transaction times. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the upgrade that solves these problems.

https://www.bitcoin.com/

Danny Hamilton, achow, Carlton Banks, is that right?

[DannyHamilton]

Danny Hamilton, achow, Carlton Banks, is that right?

Correct.

On August 1, Bitcoin Cash created a unilateral split with a block that was invalid (due to size) to Bitcoin Core at block height 478559. This larger block was a hard forking change to the consensus rules. At that time SegWit was not yet active. As a unilateral hard fork, Bitcoin Cash chose to ignore all Bitcoin Core blocks that were built on top of block height 478558 regardless of the total proof-of-work. At that time Bitcoin Cash began to maintain their own chain and ignore any new developments or changes to Bitcoin Core (regardless of whether those changes were hard-forks, soft-forks, or non-forking changes).  Bitcoin Cash was going their own way, and there was nothing Bitcoin Core could do to avoid the split (other than accepting Bitcoin Cash's hard forking block-size change).

Several weeks later, at block height 481824 the first SegWit block was mined with the Bitcoin Core consensus rules. This added additional functionality to Bitcoin Core, but did NOT cause Bitcoin Core to fork from Bitcoin Cash.  Even if Bitcoin Core had decided not to implement SegWit, it would have been impossible to reconcile the two forks into a single blockchain.

I generally just avoid responding to franky1's nonsense. It is an exercise in futility.  He appears not to be interested in facts, nor in learning.  He seems to be more interested in pushing his agenda with lies, nonsense, and lots of FUD than in actually helping anyone come to a well reasoned decision.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe the big blockers are trying to make the argument that because "Bitcoin Core" did a soft fork, then "therefore there was a bilateral hard fork" and that the "real Bitcoin" died.

But, for the sake of discussion, that it were true. What then makes "Bitcoin Core" the real Bitcoin? Is it the chain with the most Proof of Work? The most in market cap? Or is it the one that has the biggest community?

[TheQuin]

But, for the sake of discussion, that it were true. What then makes "Bitcoin Core" the real Bitcoin? Is it the chain with the most Proof of Work? The most in market cap? Or is it the one that has the biggest community?

From a non-technical standpoint, I would argue this is the most important factor. The continuation of use by the vast majority at the time Bcash split away validates Bitcoin as the continuation of the original chain and not just another fork of it. The 'real Bitcoin' cannot die.
I don't think it will ever happen but if another coin ever did overtake Bitcoin in adoption that wouldn't make it Bitcoin. There needs to be a continuation of the chain and the most used side of any fork at the time of the fork is the original.

[DooMAD]

I believe the big blockers are trying to make the argument that because "Bitcoin Core" did a soft fork, then "therefore there was a bilateral hard fork" and that the "real Bitcoin" died.

But, for the sake of discussion, that it were true. What then makes "Bitcoin Core" the real Bitcoin? Is it the chain with the most Proof of Work? The most in market cap? Or is it the one that has the biggest community?

While I'm sure you're only phrasing it that way to distinguish between the two, it's better if we stop playing "their" game, referring to it as "Bitcoin Core", because it's called Bitcoin.  Don't let them set the narrative like that.  I tend to use BTC and BCH if there's any need for clarity.  We don't need to do bitcoin.com's job for them.  

It seems as though we need two qualifiers for what constitutes "the" Bitcoin, since no one can agree on which aspect is most important.  There's the economic majority and the most accumulated proof of work.  Bitcoin has both in abundance.  BCH only has a longer chain because they nerfed their difficulty.  As such, use of the phrase "longest chain" should be used purely in the context of orphans on the same chain.  Not as a metric for two separate chains with competing rulesets.

[DannyHamilton]

What then makes "Bitcoin Core" the real Bitcoin?

Nothing.

There is no "official" bitcoin, and no owner of the name "Bitcoin" that can legally prevent others from using that same name.

Anyone can build anything they want and they can call it bitcoin if they want to.

Someone could build a completely new, completely separate, altcoin that uses proof-of-stake, with a limit if 210,000,000 coins, and a block time of 10 seconds, and they could call it Bitcoin if they want to.  Who would stop them?

The fact that the consensus rules enforced by Bitcoin Core are the consensus rules that are accepted as the "real bitcoin" is ONLY a result of the fact that an overwhelming majority of users ( merchants, wallet creators, exchanges, miners, etc) all currently choose to see it that way.

If the developers of Bitcoin Core were to make a change to their code that an overwhelming majority of users disagreed with, then rules enforced by Bitcoin Core would stop being called "Bitcoin" and whatever set of rules everyone used would become "Bitcoin".

[Wind_FURY]

What then makes "Bitcoin Core" the real Bitcoin?

Nothing.

There is no "official" bitcoin, and no owner of the name "Bitcoin" that can legally prevent others from using that same name.

Anyone can build anything they want and they can call it bitcoin if they want to.

Someone could build a completely new, completely separate, altcoin that uses proof-of-stake, with a limit if 210,000,000 coins, and a block time of 10 seconds, and they could call it Bitcoin if they want to.  Who would stop them?

The fact that the consensus rules enforced by Bitcoin Core are the consensus rules that are accepted as the "real bitcoin" is ONLY a result of the fact that an overwhelming majority of users ( merchants, wallet creators, exchanges, miners, etc) all currently choose to see it that way.

If the developers of Bitcoin Core were to make a change to their code that an overwhelming majority of users disagreed with, then rules enforced by Bitcoin Core would stop being called "Bitcoin" and whatever set of rules everyone used would become "Bitcoin".

Understood.

Well, I believe Roger Ver has already lost "that" game. Maybe the only reason why he appears to have a following is because he uses sock puppets and pays people to shill Bitcoin Cash, to which he is known to do. I used to give him the benefit of the doubt, but now I can see that he is a real twisted individual.

[mu_enrico]

Oh, perfect timing on this discussion. I'm currently researching about this topic.
From what i read, the major flaw about LN is the route will break if one node doesn't have enough BTC amount as seen in this video

That said if you have great amount of BTC, most likely many transaction will be routed to you (aka become Hub -> centralization)

However Antonopulos argue that the higher amount BTC in that "hub" the higher risk of attack. And he also mention about re-balancing channel which I have no idea about how that works.

In addition for previous comment, i also found critiques about LN routing in various sources

Rick said that routing is unsolved, the whitepaper cannot explain how route will be established in detail.

Meanwhile Andreas said that routing is source based.

Quote from papabitcoin (reddit)
"He states that current routing is source based - ie the sender has to know the entire state of the network and determine the whole path. (Note that no sooner has the sender obtained this information then it is already out of date as balances and even fees change dynamically) - how would this work for a large network? (it won't)"

This on February anyway, any update?

[Wind_FURY]

Read this, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/future-bitcoin-what-lightning-could-look/

There are good concepts to be developed, like channel factories, submarine swaps and more. But I believe channel factories and submarine swaps would make the Lightning Network more efficient but they might reduce trust minimalization.

[nc50lc]

Read this, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/future-bitcoin-what-lightning-could-look/

Oh, that's one example of Anti-Cen's "Banking Hubs". Why do he hates that, really?

For Peer-to-Peer transactions, LN is something else and still debatable if really usable by the "common" bitcoin users.
All solutions they can get are still requiring something like a middleman to keep the channel open.

Don't get me wrong, LN is the best scaling solution we have today in terms of "internal transactions" of exchanges and/or "on-platform user transactions" of payment processors.
Their transactions aren't "trustless" to begin with, they could give their users more security and more sense of trust by using Bitcoin's Lightning Network Nodes.

[etherixdevs]

I would suggest you to read here to fully understand.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

this helped me a lot

[RGBKey]

Read this, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/future-bitcoin-what-lightning-could-look/

There are good concepts to be developed, like channel factories, submarine swaps and more. But I believe channel factories and submarine swaps would make the Lightning Network more efficient but they might reduce trust minimalization.

Here's another great article I read on the lightning network: https://blog.lightning.engineering/posts/2018/05/02/lightning-ux.html

I'm excited to see all the pieces come into place on this one. LN is something that I think will make Bitcoin usable for small payments, something that currently only works at times when the mempool isn't full.

[mu_enrico]

I would suggest you to read here to fully understand.
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
this helped me a lot

Before you make such as dumbass comment, I suggest you to comprehend previous discussions along with the sources provided.
It helped me a lot.

[ahmad21]

The major argument against the Lightning Network in my opinion is still the fact that
nobody really needs a Lightning Network when Bitcoin´s main use case is being a
store of value. If you want to preserve your wealth from inflation, confiscation and other
comparable threats you can buy Bitcoin. However, you probably won´t touch your Bitcoins
for years if that is your reason for buying Bitcoin and therefore you are not the target group for the
LN.  

Besides, nearly everyone, who bought something using his Bitcoins over the years has regretted
that after the fact, because BTC only goes up in the long-term. If you believe this will be the case
going forward it is pretty stupid to buy something using a Lightning Network transaction when
the opportunity costs of buying anything with your precious Bitcoins are so tremendous.

I´m a strong believer that Bitcoin´s biggest advantages are rather in its unique characteristics
that make it a form of "sound money" than in its use as a payment system for small value
purchases or transactions (which is the major use case of the Lightning Network).

The great thing about the Lightning Network is that it is non-mandatory and anyone can still
decide to use the main layer for his transactions even if the LN becomes a giant success (which
it will not become in my opinion). This is the beauty of 2nd layer solutions in general,
they can offer new features while maintaining the trust and integrity of the main layer.

I too agree with your poin the option to chose LN protocol is the best part of the whole theory. This really ends the discussion in itself as the people agains tcan continue to use the main core protocol while the supporters will use the LN protocol by opening a channel between sender and receiver. Another point where I think it is different from banking as mentioned by OP is that there won't be any duplication of money. Which means if you have created a channel by sending some bits they are really getting transferred instead of banking where in the same money can be reflected in two different accounts in case of credit cards. Moreover, LN can't really be called centralized it is somewhere a combo of both but the best part is the channel still has no control over the funds. The authority of funds is with sender and receiver themselves only.

[Ucy]

"anything not core gets sidelined as a altcoin."

Wonder what op expect people to call Bitcoin forks. Bitcoin 1, Bitcoin 2, Bitcoin 3...? Anyway sometimes I wonder why the name Altcoin was chosen for non Bitcoin coins. I think AlternativeBicoin(Altbitcoin?)is a more befitting name.


aleksej996:
"This does introduce some scary new things that we simply can't know how will work out in a long run."

Guess no amount of this potential problem would make Lightning Network as scary as Centralized Exchanges. What I like most about LN  is that people still have control of their Bitcoin unlike the toxic exchanges that exist today.

[Wind_FURY]

"anything not core gets sidelined as a altcoin."

Wonder what op expect people to call Bitcoin forks. Bitcoin 1, Bitcoin 2, Bitcoin 3...? Anyway sometimes I wonder why the name Altcoin was chosen for non Bitcoin coins. I think AlternativeBicoin(Altbitcoin?)is a more befitting name.

Why me alone? It does not matter what I believe. Ask the whole community what they consider the altcoins are.

What about you? If I say I am going to give you .01 "Bitcoin" what do you expect to receive?

aleksej996:
"This does introduce some scary new things that we simply can't know how will work out in a long run."

Guess no amount of this potential problem would make Lightning Network as scary as Centralized Exchanges. What I like most about LN  is that people still have control of their Bitcoin unlike the toxic exchanges that exist today.

"As scary as centralized exchanges"? I used them to buy Bitcoins last week. It was not scary.

[mu_enrico]

"anything not core gets sidelined as a altcoin."
Wonder what op expect people to call Bitcoin forks. Bitcoin 1, Bitcoin 2, Bitcoin 3...? Anyway sometimes I wonder why the name Altcoin was chosen for non Bitcoin coins. I think AlternativeBicoin(Altbitcoin?)is a more befitting name.

Why me alone? It does not matter what I believe. Ask the whole community what they consider the altcoins are.
What about you? If I say I am going to give you .01 "Bitcoin" what do you expect to receive?

aleksej996:
"This does introduce some scary new things that we simply can't know how will work out in a long run."
Guess no amount of this potential problem would make Lightning Network as scary as Centralized Exchanges. What I like most about LN  is that people still have control of their Bitcoin unlike the toxic exchanges that exist today.

"As scary as centralized exchanges"? I used them to buy Bitcoins last week. It was not scary.

Core should've raised the blocksize at least 2MB while developing LN, because the tech is still unproven and so many different concepts make it even more doubtful. I just don't get it, they could prevent bcash split and still developing LN. Oh whatever will be, will be...