My conclusions about the Lightning Network and a request for critique by smarter

[odolvlobo]

To be convincing, you must show how these issues can never be overcome, and show how the uncertainties are not only not uncertain, but also have a resolution that prevents LN from succeeding. FUD isn't very convincing.

One thing that is very discouraging about LN is the bad attitude of guys like you who appear as a supporter. It is technical forum, accusing people of FUD in this subforum is irrelevant by default and in the context of this special topic is absurd.

It is just too much, asking people to prove that a system won't overcome its limitations ever and accusing them of spreading FUD if they don't buy your proposal.

LN is based on a wrong strategic choice, projecting scaling off the chain it is more than enough to be convinced that it will never go mainstream in cryptocurrency without sacrificing some basic principles and requirements, it is up to the defender to convince people otherwise.

He didn't provide any arguments to reach his conclusions. He basically wrote that LN can't work because there are unanswered questions and issues. That is FUD, by definition.

I wasn't asking him to prove anything. I was asking for some reasoning -- something like LN won't work because it depends on X and X is not possible because Y, or LN won't gain adoption because the economics don't work because Z.

Finally, I think your statement that "LN is based on a wrong strategic choice, projecting scaling off the chain it is more than enough to be convinced that it will never go mainstream in cryptocurrency without sacrificing some basic principles and requirements" is far more informative and well-thought than what the OP wrote.

[1714146164]

1714146164

[1714146164]

1714146164

[1714146164]

1714146164

[1714146164]

1714146164

[1714146164]

1714146164

[d5000]

"There are issues and uncertainties, therefore Lightning Network can never amount to anything."

Ultimately, the LN as a layer 2 solution relies on layer 1: i.e. the BTC core protocol. I think that there is a place for the LN, but it doesn’t remove the necessity of scaling BTC’s layer 1 and ensuring that fees stay reasonable. The LN has solid use cases, but not nearly as many as people think. And ultimately, it is certainly not a solution to a crippled BTC network — but only, in the best case scenario, a complimentary service for niche use cases.
I don't see the LN ever being the global payment network that some people envision.

@odolvlobo, I think your summary of the OP's first post is too negative (see the statements in bold). He doesn't say that LN does "not work". I think his point is exactly what BitUsher said in several of his posts, that LN isn't the only technique that should be relied on to scale Bitcoin.

I am significantly more optimistic about LN than the OP (and aliashraf), as (according to everything I've read about LN, including the links BitUsher posted) I still think that LN can and will be used without problems for all typical "everyday payments" up to $100, 200 or so. But for example the "probabilistic payments" idea isn't what I would consider secure for a 50$ payment if 50$ eventually becomes the minimum to be economically spendable, so on-chain scaling will be a necessity if the "economical minimum on-chain output size" (to not call it "dust limit") becomes too high.

There's still much work to be done. I think the Bitcoin Community should continue to support LN as an extremely interesting technology, but not overhype it as the "one solution for everything".

[bob123]

No! Absolutely disagree with this assertion, the only true scaling solution to bitcoin has to be on-chain, no exception.

 

You mean onchain 'scaling' like btrash ?  






No.. honestly.. on-chain scaling is good (except for just doubling the block size, thats absurd), but not enough.
There is no good (non-btrash-propaganda-) argument against off-chain scaling.. But a lot against on-chain scaling..

[aliashraf]

No! Absolutely disagree with this assertion, the only true scaling solution to bitcoin has to be on-chain, no exception.

 

You mean onchain 'scaling' like btrash ?  


No.. honestly.. on-chain scaling is good (except for just doubling the block size, thats absurd), but not enough.
There is no good (non-btrash-propaganda-) argument against off-chain scaling.. But a lot against on-chain scaling..

So, you did it, you grinned some merits by talking anti-bcash and remaining aligned with mainstream, hating bcash is good business, isn't it?


First of all, I don't hold/mine/trade bcash and have no interest in a stupid fork based on a wrong idea about on-chain scaling: increasing the block size. I'm not rehashing a proposal that obviously leads to a disasterous situation with an already centralized mining scene in which verification time increases dramatically and escalates propagation delay and causes proximity problems that ends to no where other than a radically centralized mining scenario.

Your shallow understanding of on-chain scaling is really disappointing: I'm talking about much more sophisticated schemes like sharding and side chains, I know LN enthusiasts and its developers have a lot to say about obstacles and hurdles but they are what we have to overcome instead of using them as an excuse to announce bitcoin doomed to poor performance and projecting scale-ability to off-chain.

Last words:
I noticed you have done this in few other topics I've posted in them in last few days, like a stalker, saying meaningless things, apparently because you needed the credit a newbie had given to an irrelevant answer of you. You need credit? Work harder and read more rather than acting like this.

[bob123]

So, you did it, you grinned some merits by talking anti-bcash and remaining aligned with mainstream, hating bcash is good business, isn't it?

Why are you so keen on getting those merits ?
It's not like its hard to get them... at least not if you know what you are talking about and are not a complete retard 

Your shallow understanding of on-chain scaling is really disappointing: I'm talking about much more sophisticated schemes like sharding and side chains

You really seem to lack the ability to read properly.
Like i said:

No.. honestly.. on-chain scaling is good (except for just doubling the block size, thats absurd), but not enough.

Also.. side chains counts towards on-chain scaling now? 

Last words:
I noticed you have done this in few other topics I've posted in them in last few days, like a stalker, saying meaningless things

These 'meaningless' things were just me correcting all of your mistakes you have done.
Someone has to correct the nonsense misinformation you are spreading. You are harming this community.

I don't know whether it is because you simply can not read, or because you just don't want to read.. Maybe it is even because you don't understand what you are reading..
But what you are posting is wrong in 80% of the cases.


So, come on, whine more about me getting merit while you desperately need them so much.
I won't argue with you. There is no reason to argue with people who do not understand what is being written / asked in most of these threads.

But if i see more misinformation from you being spread, i definitely will correct it. Not to teach you, but to keep the information in relevant threads here correct.

[aliashraf]

But if i see more misinformation from you being spread, i definitely will correct it. Not to teach you, but to keep the information in relevant threads here correct.

So, this is it, I got a stalker