LIGHTNING NETWORK - what is happening, dead, stagnant?

[Pffrt]

Miners get fees for Txs that occur on the main blockchain. If those transactions occur on L2 networks, they no longer get those fees.

Feel free to ask any follow up questions.

Bitcoin either needs a fork or it needs off chain method like Lightning Network to get accepted mass. Because of the nature of bitcoin chain and uts fee structure, do you think small tx will be happened through bitcoin network? Who would be interested to pay bill of $5 with a fee of another $5, I don't think anyone would be interested to do that anytime.
While it's true that there will be an affect on on-chain tx, it may decrease a little but LN still needs onchain tx. So, I don't think that will be an issue.

[1714557933]

1714557933

[rdbase]

Miners get fees for Txs that occur on the main blockchain. If those transactions occur on L2 networks, they no longer get those fees.

Are we able to confirm all the tx with the limit of 1 MB block size? For getting confirmed on next block, sometimes the fee increased to $10 even, is not it too high? On chain tx requires longer time and higher fee while LN gives instant confirmation with lower fee.

It is the life long debate: Faster transaction times vs. Cost of sending those transactions.
Fiat money transmitters had this tug a war and the cost of providing a faster way of doing it won out. Thats why it costs $100 to send $1500 overseas using western union.
Now its come into play with bitcoin and whether to use the lightning network.
The fee to send only $100 worth in bitcoin increased from $0.26 to $2.60 in but a week.

So it really is up to the sender which one they cherish more: Having a faster transaction or saving on the those fees.

[RapTarX]

Miners get fees for Txs that occur on the main blockchain. If those transactions occur on L2 networks, they no longer get those fees.

Feel free to ask any follow up questions.

Although it's a very long debate and I doubt we will get a conclusion, I guess LN will be a good thing for the bitcoin future acceptance over the world. However, there's an ongoing discussion on your claim and you can check and join here- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5158920.msg54031594#msg54031594

So it really is up to the sender which one they cherish more: Having a faster transaction or saving on the those fees.

Sometimes, it depends on the receiver too, for a lower fee, it won't be confirmed within hours which may not be accepted by the receivers.

[BrewMaster]

So it really is up to the sender which one they cherish more: Having a faster transaction or saving on the those fees.

these two aren't mutually exclusive. in fact we can't have one without the other. for example if the on chain transaction fees were very high then nobody would even be able to transfer their funds to and from their lightning network channels to want to have fast/cheap(er) transactions.

[RawDog]

Lightning was a total Polish abortion from the beginning.  Blockstream tried to take over Bitcoin and the punishment was idiot garbage ideas like Lightning.  Junk.  It is over. 

[Salamstar]

I looked at statistics, the usage went up around last half 2019 then tapered off. looks like not that terrribly popular although not died.
IT seems stagnated. Are there benefits starting to weigh in?
I wonder if major wallets are supporting or starting to support LN?

I think that the lightning network will find the appropriate opportunity to appear significantly in the near future because of the scalability problem facing the major public networks of the mass block chain. The best and most successful solution will be to use the lightning network to address the problem by conducting a large number of transactions outside the chain, thus reducing the load On the chain of major blocks that depend on Bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

Lightning was a total Polish abortion from the beginning.  Blockstream tried to take over Bitcoin and the punishment was idiot garbage ideas like Lightning.  Junk.  It is over.  

It can be its own niche, the same as Bitcoin has become it's own niche, but growing. If it's dead for you, OK. But should the developers stop simply because there are some people who didn't agree with the design-decision made?

Bitcoin Cash forked to make the big blocker part of the community happy, but obviously they're not happy. Why?

[MicroGuy]

Lightning was a total Polish abortion from the beginning.  Blockstream tried to take over Bitcoin and the punishment was idiot garbage ideas like Lightning.  Junk.  It is over. 

What do you mean tried? 

[Wind_FURY]

Lightning was a total Polish abortion from the beginning.  Blockstream tried to take over Bitcoin and the punishment was idiot garbage ideas like Lightning.  Junk.  It is over. 

What do you mean tried? 

Newbies, that's merely a conspiracy theory-meme of some people who were marginalized, the big-blockers who want giga-meg blocks, by the Core developers' design-decisions to regulate the block size, and maintain the network's decentralization.

[franky1]

idiot above is stil pushing the false narative of 'gigabyte blocks'
NO, absolutely no Bips were gigabyte blocks

they aim is to allow more transaction count onchain
core devs increased block DATA useage space but have not successfully increased transaction count ability above the 7tx/s. they hindered the transactin count ability by not removing the 1mb limit
which is thefunny thing becuse they are happy wit 4mb bloat and the only purpose of the 1mb limit was for bloat limitation.. now its used for transaction count limitation

core dev dont want more transactions. but foolishly happy for more data.
blockstream have a 100m+ debt that needs to be repaid by making financial gain through its code. those devs previous and currently are not interested in what the community want and need. but what the community would be made to pay for.
they say they are ok with 4m data bloat. this SHOULD equate to 4x tx count. but they have not even passed 1x let alone 2x of the 7tx/s capability that was estimated back in 2010
show me one day that exceeds 600k tx
(and dont say there is no demand. tx fee variability and waiting multiple blocks because limits reached shows there was a demand many times)

in short, they are not serving the communities desires in any way. but just want to push people into alternative networks
i have and keep and use BTC and not other networks/altcoins. and i feel btc devs should actually care about btc evolution. not alt networks

trying to marginalise BTC users utility and advertise they will be better off on other networks is like banks telling people to not store gold but give it to a custodian and play with paper money originally pegged to gold. then later not pegged.

heck even some idiot altnetwork fangirls are advertising custodian services before LN has even got popular
which just shows how limited it is

I believe, for higher rate of adoption, Lightning wallets/node developers should also implement what BlueWallet has done. It's custodial ONLY FOR Lightning, which you can use after install.

[nancy]

Exchanges should support LN, this will give nice advantage in adoption. But as i know bitfinex as the only big exchange which support LN. Anyway, not bad entry point for network because they are supporting bank cards

[kryptqnick]

I don't think the LN will ever gain much popularity. Okay, Electrum adopting it could make a difference, but the Lightning Network failed to solve the problems. As can be seen even from this very thread, some people will never choose it over Bitcoin for various privacy and centralization reasons (perhaps something else as well). And this might not be an insignificant amount of people, it seems to me that there are quite a lot of people who are against LN. Another problem is that it's not user-friendly, but that could theoretically be solved in the future (although I wonder if they're ever going to do that). We need other solutions for small transactions.

[DooMAD]

Whichever side of the argument you fall on, I feel that people generally have unrealistic expectations with regard to things like development and adoption.  Whether you're pro or anti towards LN, in the grand scheme of things, Lightning is still in its infancy.  I don't know if people need a reminder about this when it should be blatantly obvious, but Lightning on mainnet is only two years old.  Just because adoption may be slow at the moment, it doesn't mean that will continue to be the case after a few more years of refinement. 

I get that some of you are still bitter that the community didn't choose your preferred scaling solution, but that doesn't put you in a position to "call time" on what's been done so far.  There's also no evidence to support the notion that Bitcoin would somehow be more widely used than it is now if things had gone differently and the community had opted for bigger blocks.  By all means, stick to your entrenched, dogmatic viewpoints about how LN is supposedly evil, though.  It doesn't change anything, other than maybe the perception it gives others of how petty you are.

[franky1]

if things had gone differently and the community had opted for bigger blocks.

another LN fangirl thinking the debate was about 'bigger blocks'
its about transaction utility and utility onchain
kinda funny how its always these same two fangirls over promoting it

funnier part is the two main fangirls are not even developers, yet hang around development category kissing LN ass

yet these LN fangirls will happily say that BTC is outdated and cant scale and wont cope. they will happily throw BTC under the bus purely to advertise their alternative network that will only work if custodians are involved.

anyway
LN is not even a layer. its like trying to say bank notes are a layer of gold.. even when gold backed. they werent

sorry BTC does not have millisats. btc has a blockchain. LN does not.
LN (where N=network) is a completely different network

LN is not even a unique feature solely for btc.

but carry on promoting it fan girls. but atleast be honest about what it is and isnt. because your lame misinformation actually makes BTC look worse by saying BTC cant cope/cant scale and devs refuse to evolve BTC.

even saying stupid things like it can only evolve using a hardfork. by using examples of 2014-6 drama
yet 2014-6 drama were not even hardfork proposals nor contentious. they would not have upgraded unless majority.
the real drama was core refused to even give the community the choice to download core with the bip. thus it was dev rule not code rule.
it was cores decisions in 16 to release something they prefered and months later didnt even get 35%.
it was core who had to force THEIR upgrade. but this upgrade did not improve transaction throughput. but instead allowed scripts that are compatible with other networks

but hey. the LN fangirls cant admit to the truth

[franky1]

i wouldnt say BTC is crippled.
id say btc is stagnated due to dev politics.
BTC has alot of potential all for the sake of a few lines of code that can be removed. but are not being removed for any technical reason. but purely due to dev convenience of wanting to profit from custodial services on other networks

[lumeire]

I looked at statistics, the usage went up around last half 2019 then tapered off. looks like not that terrribly popular although not died.
IT seems stagnated. Are there benefits starting to weigh in?
I wonder if major wallets are supporting or starting to support LN?

Lightning network have many drawbacks and is currently on beta stage and also only a tech savvy can understand it and use it without any difficulties or without making any mistake. But for the majority of people it is still gonna take some time to be of anything to use at all. Rest assured when it is completely operational the bitcoins acceptance and market dominance will again start to rise as it was in the early days before ethereum and other Crypto got popular.

[DooMAD]

anyway
LN is not even a layer. its like trying to say bank notes are a layer of gold

No one gives two shits if you want to call it a layer or not.  Honestly thought you would have considered a longer break from taking potshots at Lightning after your last humiliation where you made an utterly feeble attempt to backpedal after finally realising your mistake.  But okay, make a fool of yourself once again.  It's good entertainment if nothing else.  It's not like anyone takes you seriously, aside from cryptohunter, another total wingnut.  But hey, you fruitloops gotta stick together, right?

LN is not even a unique feature solely for btc.

Other coins have LN support, but do they have LN acceptance for real-world transactions?  Keep repeating the same old moronic catchphrases like a gormless parrot, but it won't change the part where other coins cannot replicate network effects even if they can replicate the code.  You are beyond stupid if you cannot comprehend this.

but carry on promoting it fan girls. but atleast be honest about what it is and isnt.

There's a difference between "promoting it" and "correcting blatant lies about it spread by obsessed, pathetic losers".  I'm only guilty of the latter.

even saying stupid things like it can only evolve using a hardfork. by using examples of 2014-6 drama
yet 2014-6 drama were not even hardfork proposals nor contentious. they would not have upgraded unless majority.
the real drama was core refused to even give the community the choice to download core with the bip. thus it was dev rule not code rule.
it was cores decisions in 16 to release something they prefered and months later didnt even get 35%.
it was core who had to force THEIR upgrade. but this upgrade did not improve transaction throughput. but instead allowed scripts that are compatible with other networks

Ah yes, the usual contradiction in terms where you bitch about devs supposedly being in control of everything, but at the same time you freely choose to rely on them for everything because you're either too inept or too lazy to work out a viable alternative.  Never gets old.  Please keep telling us how Bitcoin is better than all the altcoins but at the same time it's also terrible because your fantasy version that will never exist would be better somehow.  

How many times do you have to be told that every lunatic on the face of the planet is not owed their own personal client to incorporate their vision for how this should work?  Devs are not your servants.  They don't produce what you demand, you entitled manbaby.  You have all the choices you need:  

• Use Bitcoin without LN and accept the rules enforced by consensus that allow others to experiment with things you don't personally approve of
• Use Bitcoin and LN
• Make this imaginary client of yours, fork off and STFU
• Use a completely different altcoin not even remotely related to Bitcoin and STFU

Those are the same options available to everyone.  Why do you feel you deserve other options where people you've never even met are somehow compelled to cater to your desires above everyone else's and produce some code just for you?  Who are you to decide the entire community wanted that specific BIP you clearly wanted and not a different one?  You must have one hell of an ego.  

[Wind_FURY]

idiot above is stil pushing the false narative of 'gigabyte blocks'
NO, absolutely no Bips were gigabyte blocks

Hi, I missed you.



I said "gigamegs"!

For context, https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1154078211791294464

Hahaha.

they aim is to allow more transaction count onchain

Which will increase the block size, which will centralize the network towards a few powerful entities in the network, like big mining and exchanges.

The Core developers have made design-decisions to avoid the network from scaling in.

Newbies, research how the Bitcoin network works. Don't listen to fudsters.

heck even some idiot altnetwork fangirls are advertising custodian services before LN has even got popular
which just shows how limited it is

I believe, for higher rate of adoption, Lightning wallets/node developers should also implement what BlueWallet has done. It's custodial ONLY FOR Lightning, which you can use after install.

I believe Lightning WILL gain a higher rate of adoption, IF it utilizes a hub-and-spoke model first, BEFORE making it more decentralized.

[franky1]

Which will increase the block size, which will centralize the network towards a few powerful entities in the network, like big mining and exchanges.

The Core developers have made design-decisions to avoid the network from scaling in.
.......

I believe Lightning WILL gain a higher rate of adoption, IF it utilizes a hub-and-spoke model first, BEFORE making it more decentralized.

ill repeat it again because the fangirl just doesnt understand actual history. nor actual evidence
there has never been a gigabyte/gigameg proposal at any time between 2009-2017 when there have been discussions over it.
the community consensus was 2mb and progress slowly in increments. (no gigabytes by midnight)
core devs said no because 'anything over 1mb would be bad for bandwidth/storage'
but what they meant was 'no coffee transctions on btc'

yet 2017 devs allowed bitcoin to have upto 4mb data but not upto4x tx capability.
so that debunks your nonsense butt kissing narrative you been pushing for years
that it was a bandwidth debate it was all about limiting tx scaling
"we dont want peoples coffee orders on bitcoin"
..
also hub and spoke is custodial of locking funds into 'banks' (guys with hundreds of channels 'joint accounts')
like an apartment maintenance custodian has access to peoples apartments, but the pretense that tenants still own the apartment/keys(lame)

but this then AS YOU KNOW causes the 'close session' dilemma at the end of a monthly session of pushing hundreds of close sessions onto the blockchain per custodian
the idea AS YOU KNOW and are pushing for is to hand these 'banks' the btc direct. and then they allocate channels of millisat tokens which they can close and reallocate without touching btc.

whilst still trying to keep it expensive to actually try claiming the BTC back. thus making people not want to play with BTC and instead play with millisats

in short. same economic game of banks wanting people to shift from gold to banknotes while the banks keep the gold.

i actually dont care if some people want to swap their BTC for millisats and play around with millisats as much as they please.
my problem is hindering BTC progress for years to try and push people into needing to use millists

[Wind_FURY]

Which will increase the block size, which will centralize the network towards a few powerful entities in the network, like big mining and exchanges.

The Core developers have made design-decisions to avoid the network from scaling in.
.......

I believe Lightning WILL gain a higher rate of adoption, IF it utilizes a hub-and-spoke model first, BEFORE making it more decentralized.

ill repeat it again because the fangirl just doesnt understand actual history. nor actual evidence
there has never been a gigabyte/gigameg proposal at any time between 2009-2017 when there have been discussions over it.

AND I'll repeat again, for context, https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1154078211791294464

In case the joke went over your head.

the community consensus was 2mb and progress slowly in increments. (no gigabytes by midnight)
core devs said no because 'anything over 1mb would be bad for bandwidth/storage'
but what they meant was 'no coffee transctions on btc'

yet 2017 devs allowed bitcoin to have upto 4mb data but not upto4x tx capability.
so that debunks your nonsense butt kissing narrative you been pushing for years
that it was a bandwidth debate it was all about limiting tx scaling
"we dont want peoples coffee orders on bitcoin"

Was it TRULY what the community wanted? Then why wasn't the Core developers thrown out? Let's run Bitcoin Classic nodes!

..
also hub and spoke is custodial of locking funds into 'banks' (guys with hundreds of channels 'joint accounts')
like an apartment maintenance custodian has access to peoples apartments, but the pretense that tenants still own the apartment/keys(lame)

It was just a personal opinion, which I believe might help for a faster rate of adoption for Lightning. If it's stupid as usual, OK.