The Lightning Network FAQ

[cfbtcman]

Lightning Network will not work, have you tried Lightning Labs APP?

Its a SCAM, they took my money and dont give it back, its impossible to take the money out to a normal onchain address, the money i can spend in LN its much less than i put in part of the money stays freezed in chanels and we cant even receive money, they say we can only waste in online games, but they dont show where and any LN transactions for another user dont work!

I complaint in support twitter, they answer one time evasively and now dont care about it.

LN will never be solution, Satoshi said that onchain transactions will support miners in the future, with LN there is no fees for the real miners that support blockchain, with time the fee of one ON-CHAIN transaction will be huge.

LN will have low fees but On-Chain will have a impossible fee to pay and who will rule the LN chanels will be the same as banks, we are not in control of our money!

We need to think about a scalling solution that splits the blocks in blockchain groups, like group A, B, C and so on, that number of groups will be bigger with the number of nodes running, that way the size of block will be always 1MB by node, node type A, node type B and so on, they could be splitted in many 1 MB parts of a block an tested online like SPV wallets.

[Rath_]

Lightning Network will not work, have you tried Lightning Labs APP?

I have used a few Lightning Network clients and so far I didn't have any problems. This includes LND which is also developed by Lightning Labs.

Its a SCAM, they took my money and dont give it back, its impossible to take the money out to a normal onchain address, the money i can spend in LN its much less than i put in part of the money stays freezed in chanels and we cant even receive money, they say we can only waste in online games, but they dont show where and any LN transactions for another user dont work!

You can close that channel forcefully even if the other party is not responding. Usually, you have to wait one day before the closing transaction will be broadcast. As for receiving money, take a look here. Did you even bother to make some research?

I complaint in support twitter, they answer one time evasively and now dont care about it.

Link or it didn't happen.

LN will never be solution, Satoshi said that onchain transactions will support miners in the future, with LN there is no fees for the real miners that support blockchain, with time the fee of one ON-CHAIN transaction will be huge.

Miners still need to mine transactions which are broadcast when channels are funded and settled.

LN will have low fees but On-Chain will have a impossible fee to pay and who will rule the LN chanels will be the same as banks, we are not in control of our money!

You don't have to connect to large HUBs. You can open a channel directly to merchant's node. You won't be charged anything for each transaction.

We need to think about a scalling solution that splits the blocks in blockchain groups, like group A, B, C and so on, that number of groups will be bigger with the number of nodes running, that way the size of block will be always 1MB by node, node type A, node type B and so on, they could be splitted in many 1 MB parts of a block an tested online like SPV wallets.

Congratulations! You have just invented sharding.

[Carlton Banks]

I have used a few Lightning Network clients and so far I didn't have any problems. This includes LND which is also developed by Lightning Labs.

you've been lucky, LND is not the most reliable Lightning software available, and it also causes compatibility problems with other Lightning implementations (which wastes the time of devs who must mitigate for LND's problems). Lightning Labs devs admit to this, yet continue to develop new features instead of focusing on fixing old bugs.

People who tacitly promoted LND without mentioning the alternatives share some responsibility for this situation, but ultimately it's Lightning Labs that are most responsible, their whole development strategy suggests they want to expand their influence, instead of producing good software.

[Wind_FURY]

Words

Maybe it won't be a success, but saying it now is too early in my opinion. Lightning can be used as something to mitigate the long waiting times when the mempool is being flooded by a spammer, or some bad actor. If merchants want "business as usual" during on-chain spamming attacks, they should accept Lightning.

[Rath_]

you've been lucky, LND is not the most reliable Lightning software available, and it also causes compatibility problems with other Lightning implementations (which wastes the time of devs who must mitigate for LND's problems). Lightning Labs devs admit to this, yet continue to develop new features instead of focusing on fixing old bugs.

Do you have any articles or messages related to it? I am working on a thread about implementations and wallets, and this piece of information could be really important for people who are thinking which one they should choose.

[Carlton Banks]

Do you have any articles or messages related to it?

https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/pull/2842#issuecomment-515336677

I see this (as I said already) as something of a prioritization issue; LND has far more devs, and a far larger project than c-lightning. If they spent more time fixing bugs than developing new features, we might see fewer of these compatibility issues. This is not the only time this sort of thing has happened, just a recent example.

In fairness, I doubt anyone's implementation is perfect. But as the most popular Lightning client, LND have arguably more responsibility to ensure their software is a good neighbor, which means being more cautious overall.


Instead, the (superficial) impression I get is that the LND team are trying to go too fast. There's a risk that a strategy like that will backfire badly if they make mistakes that are any more serious.

[cfbtcman]

To control spamming attacks we have the fee, miners would love spammers, they will not love LN when the rewards end.

Where they will go take money if everybody uses LN?
One on-chain transaction in 9 years after 3 halvings will make each on-chain transaction pays one incredible fee, so LN will not solve the problem of on-chain high fees, can even create a bigger problem in future!

Words

Maybe it won't be a success, but saying it now is too early in my opinion. Lightning can be used as something to mitigate the long waiting times when the mempool is being flooded by a spammer, or some bad actor. If merchants want "business as usual" during on-chain spamming attacks, they should accept Lightning.

[cfbtcman]

I have used a few Lightning Network clients and so far I didn't have any problems. This includes LND which is also developed by Lightning Labs.

Can you please install this APP: https://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2019/06/19/mobile-app.html

Put $10 and try it with me doing some transactions to each other?

[cfbtcman]

LN is still on development phase, so i think you experience software bug or you did something wrong. Which Lightning Labs did you use?

https://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2019/06/19/mobile-app.html

Can you install and put $10 in and then lets try it?

[Rath_]

To control spamming attacks we have the fee, miners would love spammers, they will not love LN when the rewards end.

I guess that someone will come up with a better scaling solution by 2140. The Lightning Network channels still need to broadcast transactions when closing and opening channels. Would you pay a 1000 satoshi fee for sending 1 satoshi on-chain (assuming it was not treated as dust)?

Put $10 and try it with me doing some transactions to each other?

I have a few channels on my LND node and Eclair Mobile. If that's okay with you then send me a payment request here. Note that you need to have incoming capacity.

Edit: Ah, you want me to see if I am going to encounter the same problem as yours. Sure, will post results later.

[Wind_FURY]

One on-chain transaction in 9 years after 3 halvings will make each on-chain transaction pays one incredible fee, so LN will not solve the problem of on-chain high fees, can even create a bigger problem in future!

I believe that's the same narrative some used-to-be-great people in Bitcoin said back in 2015 or 2016. They FUD that Bitcoin's "blockchain of small blocks" will be so unusable, mempool so large, waiting times so long, fees so high, that it will be dead in four years. It didn't happen.

Call it off-loading, but LN will reduce load on-chain, and increase utility.

[cfbtcman]

One on-chain transaction in 9 years after 3 halvings will make each on-chain transaction pays one incredible fee, so LN will not solve the problem of on-chain high fees, can even create a bigger problem in future!

I believe that's the same narrative some used-to-be-great people in Bitcoin said back in 2015 or 2016. They FUD that Bitcoin's "blockchain of small blocks" will be so unusable, mempool so large, waiting times so long, fees so high, that it will be dead in four years. It didn't happen.

Call it off-loading, but LN will reduce load on-chain, and increase utility.

It stopped growing, look bitcoin transaction number history, we are in 2019 and we dont make as much transactions as in 2017, we are stucked by 2 years, transactions = to price grows = Metcalf Law, other coins are beeing used much more and growing like USDT:

https://www.coindesk.com/tether-usdt-russia-china-importers

1 MB its to little block size for the world, we need to upgrade sooner or later, if it was sooner bitcoin would be doing more transactions than in 2017 and the price would be bigger too.

Bill Gates said one time 640kb of memory should be fine for everybody, today he says was the worst affirmation of his life, the same are doing the guys of bitcoin core if they think 1MB will be sufficient too.

[Carlton Banks]

It stopped growing, look bitcoin transaction number history, we are in 2019 and we dont make as much transactions as in 2017, we are stucked by 2 years, transactions = to price grows = Metcalf Law

ok, that's not really true, but let's assume it is.....

1 MB its to little block size for the world, we need to upgrade sooner or later, if it was sooner bitcoin would be doing more transactions than in 2017 and the price would be bigger too.

Bill Gates said one time 640kb of memory should be fine for everybody, today he says was the worst affirmation of his life, the same are doing the guys of bitcoin core if they think 1MB will be sufficient too.

so, make up your mind

either 1MB (you're wrong, it's 4MB) is not enough, or Bitcoin has fewer transactions and spare capacity.


whatever, Lightning still isn't mature in tech terms or in liquidity. On-chain scaling tech (taproot, schnorr etc) is still in the pipeline. Rushing these things risks disasters, and then the network effect in Bitcoin really could be damaged. Hence why I'm talking upthread about how LND should focus on quality rather than quantity.


Please don't reply, we're already off-topic, and you're already wrong in so many ways.

[ABCbits]

LN is still on development phase, so i think you experience software bug or you did something wrong. Which Lightning Labs did you use?

https://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2019/06/19/mobile-app.html

Can you install and put $10 in and then lets try it?

Since i know the fact all software related to LN is still on development phase & i had hard time when try LN on testnet, i won't.
I might try it if someone can confirm the software support Tor/SOCKS5 proxy though.

either 1MB (you're wrong, it's 4MB)

Technically it's 4 million weight unit, not 4MB (even though near 4MB with very specific transaction format) or 1MB (even though old client see it as 1MB)

[Rath_]

Can you please install this APP: https://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2019/06/19/mobile-app.html

Put $10 and try it with me doing some transactions to each other?

I managed to open a channel and send a few transactions over the Lightning Network without any major problems. However, I would not recommend this wallet to anyone in its current state. I could not set the channel opening fee and I was a bit overcharged. The same thing will happen once I decide to close that channel. I was not able to paste a payment request; I had to scan a QR code manually. There are no backups. If your phone breaks then you will have to rely on the other party to recover your coins. If you set the Bitcoin unit to Bitcoin instead of satoshi then the balance does not fit the screen unless you switch to fiat view. Also, entering the PIN is a bit inconvenient. The PIN pad should be moved up a little.

TL;DR Eclair Mobile is the best choice for now if you don't want to use a custodial wallet.

[cfbtcman]

Can you please install this APP: https://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2019/06/19/mobile-app.html

Put $10 and try it with me doing some transactions to each other?

I managed to open a channel and send a few transactions over the Lightning Network without any major problems. However, I would not recommend this wallet to anyone in its current state. I could not set the channel opening fee and I was a bit overcharged. The same thing will happen once I decide to close that channel. I was not able to paste a payment request; I had to scan a QR code manually. There are no backups. If your phone breaks then you will have to rely on the other party to recover your coins. If you set the Bitcoin unit to Bitcoin instead of satoshi then the balance does not fit the screen unless you switch to fiat view. Also, entering the PIN is a bit inconvenient. The PIN pad should be moved up a little.

TL;DR Eclair Mobile is the best choice for now if you don't want to use a custodial wallet.

This is Lightning Labs APP, suposed to be the best guys in LN, Elizabeth Starks enterprise!
Overcharged its a good point, than you tried to take money back ON-CHAIN?

Can you print a picture of your channel about:

CAPACITY (mine 3,74€)
CAN SEND (mine 2,57€)
CAN RECEIVE (mine 0€)
?

Its not supposed to can send and receive the total capacity?
They say its not, so, you imagine one service you put 50€, but you can only send 30€ and can only receive 10€ ?

Is better to use real money 

Can you send me your request of 1 Satoshi or your "CAN RECEIVE" its zero too?

[Rath_]

Overcharged its a good point, than you tried to take money back ON-CHAIN?

No, I was waiting for more of your questions. It turned out that the recommended transaction fee spiked to about 25 sat/byte a moment before I opened a channel. I paid 32 sat/byte fee so not that bad, but I am disappointed that I was not able to set it myself.

Can you print a picture of your channel about:

CAPACITY (mine 3,74€)
CAN SEND (mine 2,57€)
CAN RECEIVE (mine 0€)

Its not supposed to can send and receive the total capacity?
They say its not, so, you imagine one service you put 50€, but you can only send 30€ and can only receive 10€ ?

No, that's not how Lightning Network works. Take a look at 'Receiving Lightning funds' on this website. You can't send all of your funds because of the channel reserve which acts as an insurance if one party attempts to cheat.

Can you send me your request of 1 Satoshi or your "CAN RECEIVE" its zero too?

As you can see on the image, it's not zero because I have sent a few Lightning Network payments. However, mobile wallets are not online all the time. This means that they can't receive payments without the app being opened.

[cfbtcman]

This makes no sense, if i open a channel and i put 10$ someone needs to put 10$ too, in this case the guys from node and they will receive LN commissions of payments that i send and receive, seems pretty fair.


If i put $10 i should can receive at least other $10 (less fees), if someone send me $10 i should can close the channel and receive $20 on-chain (less fees of LN all the nodes that passed and fees on-chain)!

we need to put always much more to receive much less? Its crazy, its a bubble !

Imagine now i open one channel in the same node as you and i want to send you my 3,74€, i cant because you can only receive $0.02?

WTF?

You are saying that if we dont cash out anymore, we will receive the money back in our BTC address or in the BTC address where we put money IN that belongs to them?

If you note they have one option called "AUTOPILOT" that opens channels automatically, so if one channel closes they will open a new one immediatly and you will be always loosing fees to open and close channels, i put $10 and now just have 3,74€ and never did any transaction IN or OUT !

Send me please $0.01 REQUEST !

[Carlton Banks]

@cfbtcman

please stop posting, you're talking total nonsense


this subforum is for cogent questions on and disseminating the technical aspects of Bitcoin, you are clearly incapable of making a useful contribution

[Csmiami]

Hey there! Sorry it took me so long to reply, but I was away on vacation only to get back home and discover that my ISP had changed....

Getting back on topic:

Apart from that, I seem to not be finding any other channels (All channels tab is with a big 0).

Have you tried disabling Windows Firewall and Windows Defender (or any other AV software)? If this doesn't work then there is something wrong with your router settings. How many connections does your Bitcoin Core have?

Windows Firewall and Microsoft Defender  , had both whitelisted the app and I launched the program as an admin. I don't think there is an issue with that.

Core has around 70 connections when lauched normally; but when I create the config file, it goes down hard and is rather slow; honestly, I think it has the same behaviour as when I have not oppened the ports on the router

The only "issue" I have noticed between some youtube tutorials I've seen; is that when creating the bitcoin.conf file on core and restarting; I didn't get any "You need to rebuild the database....) message

It seems that you have already set the txindex to 1. Instead of setting it in the config file, try adding it as a launch parameter.

I believe that goes beyond my technical knowledge....