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

[Wind_FURY]

Hard fork to 2mb blocks and risk Bitcoin to become the altcoin because you believe the Lightning Network, which is still beta, "is still unproven and so many different concepts make it even more doubtful".

That must be one of the most stupid posts I have read lately.

[1713928389]

1713928389

[1713928389]

1713928389

[1713928389]

1713928389

[1713928389]

1713928389

[mu_enrico]

Hard fork to 2mb blocks and risk Bitcoin to become the altcoin because you-1 believe the Lightning Network, which is still beta-2, "is still unproven and so many different concepts make it even more doubtful".
That must be one of the most stupid posts I have read lately.-3

Well, on above statement I'm just talking about past event. Just hypothetical, if there is bigger block-size, core dev could develop LN without "pressure" and fees would still be low.
1. I'm merely a scholar who learning about btc. It's not just my personal opinion.
2. Yes, beta means unproven
3. Thank you for your compliment

[btc_enigma]

This is a very good point. Finally a fair discussion. On reddit bitcoin anything on LN is upvoted without understand the reasons.

I am all for decentralization and bitcoin. Few reason LN makes me scared:

• It is too complex: I tried to read the paper multiple times and its very very complex. They have spent pages and pages on finding way to stop other party from stealing funds locked in channel. Compare with the bitcoin whitepaper - elegant and simple. I am not saying it won't work, but in 99% such a complex design is useless. Its like creating a mined blockhain to store a library database
• Requirement of being always online: This is my biggest problem. In response I got the argument of watchtowers, which creates another layer of people to trust. Would rather use a online wallet service instead of this !
• Prone to DDOS attacks - This was also mentioned by Peter Todd
• Funds locked in channels - Seems like you have keep sending more BTC bitcoins to LN to be able to transact with more number of people. I don't frequently do transaction with one single party which seems to be where LN is useful. Don't want my funds locked up. No Thanks !

[TheQuin]

I am all for decentralization and bitcoin. Few reason LN makes me scared:

You get scared by a network you are not forced to use. 

It is too complex: I tried to read the paper multiple times and its very very complex. They have spent pages and pages on finding way to stop other party from stealing funds locked in channel. Compare with the bitcoin whitepaper - elegant and simple. I am not saying it won't work, but in 99% such a complex design is useless. Its like creating a mined blockhain to store a library database

You get scared of things you don't understand.

Requirement of being always online: This is my biggest problem. In response I got the argument of watchtowers, which creates another layer of people to trust. Would rather use a online wallet service instead of this !

You get scared of leaving a computer online.

Prone to DDOS attacks - This was also mentioned by Peter Todd
Funds locked in channels - Seems like you have keep sending more BTC bitcoins to LN to be able to transact with more number of people. I don't frequently do transaction with one single party which seems to be where LN is useful. Don't want my funds locked up. No Thanks ![/li][/list]

You get scared by misinformation. There's been a lot of work to mitigate potential DDoS attacks. You can close a channel anytime you like so your funds are not locked up.

[Carlton Banks]

Core should've raised the blocksize at least 2MB while developing LN

They did, the limit is now 4x higher at 4MB.

Biggest ever Bitcoin block was 2.3 MB. That's bigger than the 2MB you're asking for.

because the tech is still unproven

Lightning testing has been conducted on the Bitcoin testnet for over 1 year, and increasingly large amounts of people are using it with the live Bitcoin blockchain (6000+ channels moving around 18 BTC right now).

Lightning payment channels are proven technology, by definition. It's been tested extensively now.

and so many different concepts make it even more doubtful

Name them.

I just don't get it, they could prevent bcash split and still developing LN. Oh whatever will be, will be...

No-one can prevent forks in the code or any blockchain forks caused by forked code. The Bitcoin developers can only do their best to make sure that Bitcoin users stay on the Bitcoin chain, they cannot control the actions of people deliberately splitting the blockchain.

[figmentofmyass]

Requirement of being always online: This is my biggest problem. In response I got the argument of watchtowers, which creates another layer of people to trust. Would rather use a online wallet service instead of this !

You get scared of leaving a computer online.

fair enough though---that's the most legit critique of LN there is. you need to keep your private keys online.

that's why it's not adequate to scale bitcoin, per se. it's only good for low-value payments, not value storage---at least if you're responsible about your finances. because of that, most value should remain on the blockchain.

[mu_enrico]

They did, the limit is now 4x higher at 4MB.
Biggest ever Bitcoin block was 2.3 MB. That's bigger than the 2MB you're asking for.

Lightning testing has been conducted on the Bitcoin testnet for over 1 year, and increasingly large amounts of people are using it with the live Bitcoin blockchain (6000+ channels moving around 18 BTC right now).
Lightning payment channels are proven technology, by definition. It's been tested extensively now.

No-one can prevent forks in the code or any blockchain forks caused by forked code. The Bitcoin developers can only do their best to make sure that Bitcoin users stay on the Bitcoin chain, they cannot control the actions of people deliberately splitting the blockchain.

Thanks for this enlightening message, much appreciated!

[Wind_FURY]

Hard fork to 2mb blocks and risk Bitcoin to become the altcoin because you-1 believe the Lightning Network, which is still beta-2, "is still unproven and so many different concepts make it even more doubtful".
That must be one of the most stupid posts I have read lately.-3

Well, on above statement I'm just talking about past event. Just hypothetical, if there is bigger block-size, core dev could develop LN without "pressure" and fees would still be low.
1. I'm merely a scholar who learning about btc. It's not just my personal opinion.

I am not a Bitcoin expert, I am also a learner just like you and sorry for being rude. But the suggestion was "not smart".

2. Yes, beta means unproven

Beta means deployed in public for real use but not the final release.

Does this look "unproven" to you? https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/