Does Lighting Netowork really scale and for what cost?

[kaisa]

None of the networks based on technology are perfect, there will be a gap and definitely leave doubt. However, the network will produce a transaction record, logically the technology in bitcoin will broadcast a transaction record. Even though LN is not part of bitcoin but LN is certain to record the transaction, it's just that time to broadcast notes on the blockchain takes time. logically if a transaction record will accumulate it will cause problems in the future. If you are a bitcoiner, I recommend using genuine bitcoin to make transactions and avoid transacting using LN unless you want to pay for coffee.

[franky1]

What choice do we have? The math has shown that Block size upgrades are surely not the solution for the scaling problems, when Bitcoin goes mainstream. The LN is surely a better off-chain second layer solution for all these micro transactions that are clogging the Blockchain.  

The on-chain solutions will be a good temporary solution, but once this goes mainstream, it will all fall apart. We saw this happening in 2017 and we were not even close to mainstream adoption then.  

Sure. This is due to the poor change and expectation management done in core that just does not fit to global fin tech standards and only loves the store of value / speculation feature left.

People had unrealistic expectations about "cheap/free and instant transactions." I really wish that narrative -- spread by companies like Blockchain and Coinbase -- had never caught on. It was never part of the design. Low fees just implies low transaction demand.

It's not that the store-of-value aspect is all that matters. It's that perpetually increasing block size drives fee revenues down, which threatens the mining incentive as the block reward gets lower and lower. That's a threat to the entire security model of Bitcoin.

LN isn't perfect but it's the best candidate we have to get the best of both worlds -- scalability and cheap/instant transactions.

scalability OF ANOTHER NETWORK
subtly saying bitcoin cant scale is subtly saying to future other network people, that want to exit the other network.. that its best not to return to bitcoins network

see the problem with that subtlety ?? banks done the same with gold in the 18th century.

thunderdome 2 may enter 1 may leave
banks gold and silver may enter silver may leave
LN bitcoin and litecoin may enter litecoin may leave

why do you think there are subtle word play terms going on, such calling data "weight"

funny part is near on 10 years of bitcoins "weight" is only the size of a fingernail bit of plastic (256gb microsd) yet the subtle wording the roadmap wants to imply to cause people to not want bitcoin NETWORK growth is that bitcoin network is heavy and expensive.

again even you are implying that cheap fee's = low demand. when infact there are many ways on the bitcoin network to have cheaper fee's than today by just having better fee control... compared to the foolish desire that people want fee's to go up rather than let scaling on network go up to cover costs at lower fees

EG instead of EVERYONE having to pay more PER TRANACTION when blocks are full.. the people with bloated transactions that spend too often to cause those fills can pay more, and those that dont have bloated transactions and only spend now and again can pay less PER TRANSACTION
todays (lack of) fee control. means if one person spams blocks.. everyone else ends up paying more

[suzanne5223]

LN does not help. It harms original Bitcoin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5080565.msg48966290#msg48966290

I dont know the depth story about Ligthning network harming original bitcoin but I do know that lightning network is a solution to the scalability and high cost of crypto transaction and bitcoin not to be the only crypto to make use of it.  The question is how would it hurt bitcoin cause the project was implemented to help crypto currency transactions.

[franky1]

I dont know the depth story about Ligthning network harming original bitcoin but I do know that lightning network is a solution to the scalability and high cost of crypto transaction and bitcoin not to be the only crypto to make use of it.  The question is how would it hurt bitcoin cause the project was implemented to help crypto currency transactions.

it vaults up coins and then gives people non-blockchained non audited 12 decimal 'payments' to play with.
think about gold and bankers of 18th century vaulting up the gold and handing out promissory notes that were supposedly meant to be just as equal to gold but easier to manage. think how that played out

though squatter is trying to play the utopian fluffy positive card promoting this alternative network for the benefit of custodians(eltoo factories),,,trying to oversell why its convenient.
he is atleast starting to show he know the actual workings (finally). why subtly hinting at the flaws of the whole 'trust'/co-signed permissioned stuff

yep deposit funds into a vault belonging to an exchange. and then let the exchange(factory) hand out unconfirmed offchain promissory notes to users for the users to then have non-blockchained payments as the initial state for opening and closing channels.
where close channels are not broadcastable transactions but LN internal 12 decimal payments that need to be sent back to the factory(exchange/custodian) for the factory to choose to hand out fresh payments to users. or if the customer pays a substantial fee, broadcast back to the bitcoin network

open:
onchain                  |      offchain
userA->exchange    |                                        /> hub(regional bank) A -> user A  \
userB->exchange    |      exchange(12 decimal)  -> hub(regional bank) B                   > channel AC
userC->exchange    |                                        \> hub(regional bank) C -> user C  /
close:
off chain                                                                            |      on chain
                     / user A -> hub A -\                                      |    exchange -> userA
channel AC  <                  hub B -> exchange(12 decimal)    |    exchange -> userB                                     
                     \ user C -> hub C -/                                      |    exchange -> userC
OR
closer re-open
off chain                                                                         
                     / user A -> hub A -\                                      /> hub(regional bank) A -> user A  \     > channel AB
channel AC  <                  hub B -> exchange(12 decimal)    -> hub(regional bank) B -> user B  /                     
                     \ user C -> hub C -/                                      \> hub(regional bank) C -> user C

requiring the exchanges to have management of funds and decide on things.
each -> is one step AWAY from holding a actual bitcoin network held UTXO, whereby users are trusting the unconfirmed
taint of transactions back to the exchange

all to reduce trying to let users broadcast back to the network as much...

[Summation]

The size of Lighting Netowork is very small now, and many people around me are still using traditional trading methods when transferring money on exchanges and trading on our P2P.
But it's impossible to deny that Lighting Netowork will be very promising and popular in the future, and I believe there may be more rapid technology than Lighting Netowork will be born.

[Zin-Zang]

What choice do we have? The math has shown that Block size upgrades are surely not the solution for the scaling problems, when Bitcoin goes mainstream. The LN is surely a better off-chain second layer solution for all these micro transactions that are clogging the Blockchain.  

The on-chain solutions will be a good temporary solution, but once this goes mainstream, it will all fall apart. We saw this happening in 2017 and we were not even close to mainstream adoption then.  

Whose Math?

Fact  is, BTC should have moved to a true 4 mb block size without the segwit weighted block bullshit which actually is lower than a normal 4 mb block size.
* Had the devs done so, the BTC community would not have fractured into the BTC/BCH/BSV nonsense that exists today, with none of the communities as strong as the original prefork version.*

BTC does not need to match visa, it only needed to handle it's own volume.

Offchain solutions offer unlimited potential ,
but the pitfalls are: you are placing control of your money back in the hands of 3rd parties.
* One of the main benefits of crypto tossed aside. No Banks needed! *

Moving to offchain when 8 gig and higher blocks were no issue ,  was pure manipulation by those with darker intentions.

FYI:
One confusion by the unknowing is thinking every block will be the max block size, it is not , the blocks only increase to needed requirement to hold the transactions. So a Network with 4 mb max block size , would still have only 1 or 2 MB blocks the majority of the time, except during time of congestion.

[hv_]

LN does not help. It harms original Bitcoin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5080565.msg48966290#msg48966290

I dont know the depth story about Ligthning network harming original bitcoin but I do know that lightning network is a solution to the scalability and high cost of crypto transaction and bitcoin not to be the only crypto to make use of it.  The question is how would it hurt bitcoin cause the project was implemented to help crypto currency transactions.

The imminent security for Bitcoin is based on a healthy proof of work economical based network built by honest miners ( defined by the original white paper).  PoW is the new thing, that makes it all work and safe (10y proven), compared to hashcash or other earlier tries for a P2P electronic cash. 

LN will not incentify miners, since it steals txs. These txs also have not the same security and legal (registered payment processor) model than pure on chain txs.

Extrem situation might be that no onchain settlement will be done, and LN is paypal...  why doing / pushing it at all?

[squatter]

People had unrealistic expectations about "cheap/free and instant transactions." I really wish that narrative -- spread by companies like Blockchain and Coinbase -- had never caught on. It was never part of the design. Low fees just implies low transaction demand.

It's not that the store-of-value aspect is all that matters. It's that perpetually increasing block size drives fee revenues down, which threatens the mining incentive as the block reward gets lower and lower. That's a threat to the entire security model of Bitcoin.

LN isn't perfect but it's the best candidate we have to get the best of both worlds -- scalability and cheap/instant transactions.

scalability OF ANOTHER NETWORK
subtly saying bitcoin cant scale is subtly saying to future other network people that want to exit the other network that its best not to return to bitcoins network

We don't need to be subtle: Blockchains don't scale well and transaction size can only be optimized so much. Blockchains can't give us exponentially increased throughput without serious security and performance trade-offs. I'm okay offloading much of that throughput off-chain if we can do so in a secure way, without third party trust. What's the problem with multiple interoperable protocols working together?

[franky1]

We don't need to be subtle: Blockchains don't scale well and transaction size can only be optimized so much. Blockchains can't give us exponentially increased throughput without serious security and performance trade-offs. I'm okay offloading much of that throughput off-chain if we can do so in a secure way, without third party trust. What's the problem with multiple interoperable protocols working together?

1. you assume that offloading alot of bitcoin utility onto the separate network will happen.
got any stats to back that up??
here goes:
take visa stats in a world of fiat, people only use visa ~42 times a month. thats only once or twice a day. in bitcoin world with less merchants, people do not transact daily.
so real life users that do real life bitcoin transactions dont use crypto 20-100 times a month
the reality is that people do maybe transactions of lets say 5-20 a MONTH.(many do only a few a year)

2. take LN as the 2016 concept 2nd party control (without custodial factory3rd party(goldfortknox analogy)), whereby to have reliant connections. you are going to need 5 channels with different people. and your counterpart will need 5 channels. (incase people are offline, incase people raid funds of one channel, blah blah blah)

the amount of data onchain per user per month(because most wont want to put life savings in and locked up for life, they will in reality only budget 2-4 weeks) means about 10-20 transactions a month onchain just to get in and out of LN

reality is if they would usually spend 5-20 times normally.. but need 10-20 transactions to vault and unvault from LN there wont be much 'offloading' utility gained via LN anyway.

3. plus those who want to retain 100% control. and dont want to have to split funds, pre-plan spending habits, dont want to worry about route raids, dont want to have to worry about whos online, etc.. will have many people not using LN at all
after all LN for "convenience" ends up becoming exactly like fiat. so those loving crypto because its nothing like fiat will not want to go back to fiatesq payments.. they will just say whats the point of crypto if the only way to use it is to do the same thing as fiat

2. under the factory concept of LN (fortknoxbank business model) 3rd party trying to keep people away from returning to bitcoin.. (yea i know you will plaster all the positives.) but you said it yourself third party control=bad

under old non factory LN concept is 2party control. which is not 1st party control. especially when that second party. and any party along the route. and even the destination will all need to be online and accept the payments. makes what was a idea of no party, no permission system(bitcoin network) has people promoting the future of crypto is only viable via 2party/3party control on a different network
all because of the EMPTY fear of scaling bitcoin

4. i say its an empty fear. because if you feel that being a masternode of multiple coin networks is not a fear.. then default logic is that being a node of 1 chain is less of a fear. so saying LN wil be great because nodes can be master nodes. defeats the argument that bitcoin only nodes should be feared

5. the last 3 years of delays and excuses have been that bitcoin cant scale.. that LN will be this thing that will take away a majority of utility away from bitcoin so bitcoin wont need to scale.
but the realistic thing is that just to get people into LN will bottleneck bitcoin if bitcoin continues to be delayed in scaling. if LN takes off.. or if it doesnt.
as i also said LN wont offset much utility. hardly anyone does 10-20 transactions on bitcoin each month to require a non factory concept of LN. but without scaling bitcoin. people will not want to return to bitcoin

6. dont get me wrong i understand the NICHE for certain usecases.. but the bitcoin network CAN scale, and SHOULD scale whether LN takes off or not.
because LN is not the solution that will help much in the end. its just a way to lock coins up. keep bitcoin innovation down and try getting users to give up on bitcoin so that custodians can grab bitcoin while letting users end up thinking returning to bitcoin network(100% control of funds) is not worth the effort.

7. and as for your failing of using the violin playing/harp string plucking that bitcoin needs high onchain fee's to pay pools...
i laugh at you.
a. because having 16,000 tx onchain paying 25cents is the same as having 4000 tx onchain paying $1.. you dont need to force fee's up. and force transaction scale down to "help miners"
instead having the blockchain scale and allow more transactions onchain means more total combined fee, without needing individuals to pay more. makes people LOVE bitcoin MORE
b. making individuals pay more will make then LOVE bitcoin LESS
c. i know you hope you get to be a factory and hope you will earn some millisats by promoting LN... but you wont. it will be coinbase, circle and other custodians that will get that honour. so take away your personal goals of getting rich via LN and start actually thinking about the bitcoin network

8. think outside your personal greed and desire of hopes of being a factory.
imagine millions of people that get paid 5cents an hour. they wont want to have to spend multiple hours of labour onchain to lock funds up or use bitcoin (your mindset that bitcoin SHOULDNT SCALE and SHOULD raise fees)
they wont want to then find out they need someone else to not only be online but agree, sign for their payments.

9. and if the only thing you learned from this is that LN wont offload much transactions.. do not do the foolish thing of trying to twist it into, 'then ln is no harm'.. transactions count offloading is not the same as removing VALUE. remember the greed mindset. move people away from blockchains, remove value away from blockchains increase costs of blockchains by persuading/presuming/promoting that custodial/co-signed accounts are the future

LN is not the same 100% self control ethos as bitcoin.
LN is not the same network as bitcoin
LN is not the same push funds without permission as bitcoin
LN is not the same 24/7 always open network as bitcoin

[nutildah]

These kinds of threads are interesting because they always bring out two contingencies of posters:

1. Those who are actively interested in ways to improve bitcoin's level of adoption.
2. Those who get angry at new technology.

The latter tend to forget there was specific rationale in keeping the block size limited.

[franky1]

The latter tend to forget there was specific rationale in keeping the block size limited.

a. no one rationally is saying bitcoin needs to grow by "gigabytes by midnight" (thats the distraction of  empty fear argument)
b. 256gb is the size of a fingernail. not a server. and 256gb is 9 years of block data, not one day
c. a 4tb hard drive costs 1 week groceries but copes with 16mb blocks for 5 years (usual average time people upgrade hardware)
d. telling people to get off the bitcoin network, bitcoin network needs expensive transactions is not "helping bitcoin adoption"
e. using a non-blockchain network requiring to wait for co-signer to be available just to transact is NOT "new technology"
f. the 1mb base block was a temporary restriction which was even mentioned by bitcoins creator to remove it by 2011
g. right now removing the witness scale factor to allow true utility of 4mb can be done without controversial forks
h. scaling bitcoin blocks can be done progressively without years of dev decisions, but automatically adjusts like difficulty adjusts
i. by saying non-blockchain payments are as secure as blockchain payments. is basically saying blockchains are not needed

the echo chamber of LN promoters. do not understand the issue of LN. many dont even look at stats, dont run scenarios. and dont speak to average joe, many have not ven used LN under critical mindsets
all they see is the selfish hope of greed, and emphasis HOPE that the promoters will get rich being hubs/factories

but in the end if LN becomes popular. LN causes bitcoin network to NEED scaling to reduce on/off ramp bottlenecks of LN
but in the end if LN doesnt become popular. bitcoin network to NEED scaling just to stop bottlenecks

what people promoting non-blockchain networks are forgetting is the whole point of blockchains.

[nutildah]

b. 256gb is the size of a fingernail. not a server. and 256gb is 9 years of block data, not one day

Its twice the size of my hard drive. We already have a bigger block experiment underway (2 actually). Their blocks never come close to getting filled.

d. telling people to get off the bitcoin network, bitcoin network needs expensive transactions is not "helping bitcoin adoption"

Have you transacted in BTC lately? The median fee is around 8 cents. Not exactly "expensive."

e. using a non-blockchain network requiring to wait for co-signer to be available just to transact is NOT "new technology"

The way that they interact with blockchains most certainly is a new technology. I just don't understand your constant anger at LN. If you don't like it, don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

[franky1]

The way that they interact with blockchains most certainly is a new technology. I just don't understand your constant anger at LN. If you don't like it, don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

its the same business idea of the 18th century

and its not about hating or loving LN
LN is a different network.
its about actually taking away the fluffy cloud utopian dream of LN. and actually thinking about the bitcoin network and how LN promoters are saying the bitcoin networks fee's need to go up, bitcoin networks transaction per day throughput needs to not increase. all so the promoters can HOPE for income streams on another network

[Herbert2020]

what people promoting non-blockchain networks are forgetting is the whole point of blockchains.

i am wondering what YOU think the method for scaling bitcoin should be? so far all i have seen is you over criticizing the scaling solutions that have been adopted both on-chain and as second layer, even to a point where it becomes wrong.

[Dogboy714]

what people promoting non-blockchain networks are forgetting is the whole point of blockchains.

i am wondering what YOU think the method for scaling bitcoin should be? so far all i have seen is you over criticizing the scaling solutions that have been adopted both on-chain and as second layer, even to a point where it becomes wrong.

Subscribed. Lets go Frank.

[franky1]

Have you transacted in BTC lately? The median fee is around 8 cents. Not exactly "expensive."

https://www.blockchain.com/charts/transaction-fees-usd?timespan=30days
$48,000 - $125,000 a day
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions?timespan=30days
226,000 - 300,000 a day
=21cents - 41cents a transaction

as for "not exactly expensive". im guessing your ignorant to the part of the planet where under 20cents is an hours labour
think rationally.
if people have to pay an hours labour just in fees. they wont see an advantage of it compared to mpesa and other things.
if it costs more an hours labour just to vault up crypto old bankerer-esq co-sign business models.. why bother

second layer

by you calling it that. just shows how little you have learned in the last 2 years+ of chances to research the reality.
so i doubt pointing you in the direction of
  multiple ways to scale BITCOIN(not other networks)
  showing you LN's flaws
would convince you..
seems too many people are stuck just wanting LN positive promotional material to be spread about

i have travelled the world, and instead of carrying around a tin can of pink paint to draw fluffy clouds. i actually listen to normal peoples real thinking of stuff.(aswell as tenical people.. but the main thing is listening to people that LN wants to adopt)
you would be surprised at how many people and businesses i have got to adopt BITCOIN(not other networks) by revealing the negatives and positives of both bitcoin and other networks.

those who only spew out the HOPES of positives, are the ones that end up just sounding like snake oil salesmen

i also do my own research away from the fluffy cloud promotional material of buzzwords and actually look behind the curtain and look under the rug to see whats hiding and not being said..
i think critically about the realistic stuff. not just hopes and prayers and dreams of the over promised promotional material.

but if you read my last posts 4tb hard drives are not millions of dollars. nodes wont/dont have to be servers
99.9% of LN users are and never were even going to be fullnode users. so dont even attempt to play the fullnode card.
bitcoin doesnt need 99.9% of users being fullnodes either

but bitcoin does let users have 100% control to spend funds to any address without worry of:
if others will route raid their funds
is the destination online at same time as the route at the same time as the co-signer.
amungst other issues LN will always have

to all those who still have all hopes on LN
here is chrisdecker. one of the lead LN developers himself saying this
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=540

..
as for SCALING bitcoin. there are many many ways that wont cause fee increases nor the empty argument of "gigabytes by midnight"

funny part segwit is not a scaling thing.
you cant re-segwit a segwit.
segwit is not better at byte per tx compared to pre sgwit.
segwit has not and wont get passed a 600k a day transaction count,(numbers known about since 2010)
segwits real purpose was to have a tx format to be a gateway that makes bitcoin able to vault funds up so that the separate network called LN can peg 12 decimal payment tokens to. (litecoin, vertcoin and others done so too. so LN is not a "bitcoin" sole feature/layer) its a separate network for multiple coins

[Herbert2020]

none of the things you just said have anything to do with the question that i asked. you just focused on one "word" and repeated everything  you have been saying again!

funny part segwit is not a scaling thing.

scaling was one of the things that SegWit did. and the scaling doesn't stop there either. it will continue with the additional technology implementation/additions in the future that the script versioning inside of it offers.
it offers things like the ability to reduce the transaction size, for example this tx that you loved last time (bb7f7a0988e96f9939d0a39effc969ff5c1c18be9fe667ddde65c290dd8ae2d0) would become something around 20 kB instead of the current 65 kB

i am still curious to know what your "better" solution for scaling bitcoin is though...

[nutildah]

Have you transacted in BTC lately? The median fee is around 8 cents. Not exactly "expensive."

https://www.blockchain.com/charts/transaction-fees-usd?timespan=30days
$48,000 - $125,000 a day
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions?timespan=30days
226,000 - 300,000 a day
=21cents - 41cents a transaction

OK first of all you're doing some mass averaging here. Thats NOT the same thing as a median! Here's a more accurate portrayal of fees for you:

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 4 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 257 bytes, this results in a fee of 1,028 satoshis.

1,028 satoshis = slightly less than four cents!

If somebody wants to pay a $1 fee on a $1,000 transaction, that's their business and it beats out most fiat payment processors.

as for "not exactly expensive". im guessing your ignorant to the part of the planet where under 20cents is an hours labour

I live in the Philippines where 50 cents an hour is a decent salary so you're pretty much dead wrong. People who make 20 cents an hour simply don't have the time or the resources to screw around with bitcoin. They probably don't have access to steady internet or phones capable of supporting a bitcoin wallet. The average world salary is roughly $9 an hour.

if people have to pay an hours labour just in fees. they wont see an advantage of it compared to mpesa and other things.
if it costs more an hours labour just to vault up crypto old bankerer-esq co-sign business models.. why bother

Again your conflating averages with medians. It's a specious argument made to further your weird narrative about bitcoin being bad.

[Wind_FURY]

LN does not help. It harms original Bitcoin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5080565.msg48966290#msg48966290

I dont know the depth story about Ligthning network harming original bitcoin but I do know that lightning network is a solution to the scalability and high cost of crypto transaction and bitcoin not to be the only crypto to make use of it.  The question is how would it hurt bitcoin cause the project was implemented to help crypto currency transactions.

The imminent security for Bitcoin is based on a healthy proof of work economical based network built by honest miners ( defined by the original white paper).  PoW is the new thing, that makes it all work and safe (10y proven), compared to hashcash or other earlier tries for a P2P electronic cash.  

Isn't Bitcoin's Proof of Work based on Hashcash? It was something developed as an anti-spam measure for email.

I do not know what you are trying to make it look there.

LN will not incentify miners, since it steals txs. These txs also have not the same security and legal (registered payment processor) model than pure on chain txs.

Steal? I believe that's not the correct word to use. No one "stole" any fee from any miner.

Extrem situation might be that no onchain settlement will be done, and LN is paypal...  why doing / pushing it at all?

Lightning is Paypal? Explain how.

[franky1]

OK first of all you're doing some mass averaging here. Thats NOT the same thing as a median!

your using median.. thats so much fail on you
4,4,5,8,16
your median is 5
average is 7.4
so your under estimating.. (your pink fluffy clouding numbers)
EG
if there was only 5 seats on a bus and the bus had a 'bid for seat' system where by 10people offered
4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,8,16

these people will get to sit down
5,5,5,8,16
these wont
4,4,4,5,5
so if you looked at a median and seen so far median is 5 and you paid 5. you would have been at the back of the queue of the people that paid 5 so you as an 11th person would be part of the 4,4,4,5,5,5 lot that wont get a seat
where as by going for average 7.4 i would have jumped the queue your stuck in and i would have got a seat
5,5,7.4,8,16
leaving you and another 5 payer waiting for the next bus, HOPING to get on
4,4,4,5,5,5,5

then 10 further fresh people see the average is now 8.28
4,4,4,5,5,5,5 + 8,8,8,9,9,9,9,9,16,16,32,32
guess what
9,16,16,32,32
get on the bus... and your still waiting

secondly, LACK of a fee priority mechanism* , causes EVERYONE to pay more
(that is designed to cost an individual more if they spam tx's)
thirdly having to rely on a website to tell you what the best estimate of fee should be
and having and a node that doesnt easily tell people the bytes of a transaction to even use the estimate is not good practice.

EG if everyone sees 1028sats as the suggestion. not everyone will get in a block because everyones just sheep following a estimate. as shown in example above

the "free market" of a fee market is not helpful. its actually harmful
a proper fee formulae needs to come back in play that actually treats people individually based on their circumstances...
and here is a thing that LN greed lovers will love. a proper fee formulae IN BITCOIN will help those that dont need LN(non spammers have cheap fee ONCHAIN) but also really push those that would fit the LN NICHE to use LN(EXPENSIVE FEE onchain)..
the ridiculousness of a spammer pushing up fee's for everyone is not logical, ethical, economical.. its just greed to persuade people to not enjoy using bitcoin

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 4 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 257 bytes, this results in a fee of 1,028 satoshis.
1,028 satoshis = slightly less than four cents!
If somebody wants to pay a $1 fee on a $1,000 transaction, that's their business and it beats out most fiat payment processors.

if everyone paid 4cents everyone wont get "fast" transacting

plus your using the same lame argument that it can cost you as little as 10cents to make a cup of coffee at home. so expect to pay that for all coffee no matter where you go

as for "not exactly expensive". im guessing your ignorant to the part of the planet where under 20cents is an hours labour

I live in the Philippines where 50 cents an hour is a decent salary so you're pretty much dead wrong. People who make 20 cents an hour simply don't have the time or the resources to screw around with bitcoin. They probably don't have access to steady internet or phones capable of supporting a bitcoin wallet. The average world salary is roughly $9 an hour.

are you watching too many of them 1980's oxfam videos with specifically chosen background music to play on harp strings
you do know that things are not like the 1980's
yea no one is going to spend $600 on an iphone.. but there are cheaper smartphones people have. oh and as for no access to internet/cellular service.. maybe you need to research Mpesa. and countries which skipped passed landlines and decades of 54k, 0.5mb-5mb broadband, fibre..  yep skipped all that and moved straight to 4g/5g

and as for your mindset that bitcoin should only be for developed countries and rich people.. thats putting up barriers of entry and excluding people.
those that would actually benefit from bitcoin the most are the unbanked.
oh and please dont rebutt that they should lock value up and use multisig factories(LN). as thats just the same to them as opening a bank account (once you wash away the pink fluffy buzzwords)

P.S i am a whit brit with hoards of btc. but even i can be open to those not in my situation. just a shame you cant.

if people have to pay an hours labour just in fees. they wont see an advantage of it compared to mpesa and other things.
if it costs more an hours labour just to vault up crypto old banker-esq co-sign business models.. why bother

Again your conflating averages with medians. It's a specious argument made to further your weird narrative about bitcoin being bad.

again median LOL.. you have no clue..


im not the one saying bitcoin is bad. but those saying
bitcoin cant scale
bitcoin wont work for X,Y,Z.
need to push people off bitcoins network
need to innovate other networks as there is no point innovating bitcoin network

are the ones saying bitcoin is bad.
...
lets get to the point. i understand that you thinking 20cents is reasonable, because your greed is HOPING that if you get LUCKY to be a factory you can charge upto 19cents and still be seen as cheaper..
but pushing bitcoin networks to a "its ok to be expensive for millions of people" is not open barrierless mindset. thats just selfish hope of greed

having the mindset of LN promoters who want
bitcoin fee's to go up
to want people to move off the bitcoin network
users to not have 100% control but have to rely on co-signers being online
users to have to close out to a factory(not self broadcast back to bitcoin)
where the factory is incentivised to keep people in LN

is not having a positive bitcoin mindset