Lightning Network, is it a good solution?

[Haunebu]

A major drawback of the lightning network is that it does not support offline payments. This is an issue to users who do not have internet connectivity 24 hours in a day.

This makes no sense in my opinion. BTC was designed as an online payment alternative to offline FIAT in order to help people conduct financial transactions in an anonymous and decentralized manner. Offline payments was never the goal which is why this isn't a disadvantage at all.

Pros are very clear:
- Much cheaper to transact

Even if the fees is less, you will end up spending a lot for maintaining the channels which is why it is only feasible when working with particular users on a regular basis. Overall, it isn't always cheap.

[1715329737]

1715329737

[1715329737]

1715329737

[1715329737]

1715329737

[1715329737]

1715329737

[kryptqnick]

Many people seem to be fan of LN while any others are directly opposing this. I'm not an old guy here nor I'm a techy guy in bitcoin. I only know the basic which I need. However, so far, LN seems to be a good addition. But why some people say it's not good?
What are the advantage vs disadvantage of LN? Can you please put your opinion? I would love to see the both side.

My opinion is that the Lightning Network seemed like an exciting solution to the scalability problem which encompasses transaction fees and time as the consequences, but in the end it turned out to be an unsatisfactory solution. It's not easy to use, and some of those geeky enough to use it are against it due to centralization and ideology issues among other things. So while Bitcoin itself certainly needs a solution for small transactions, I don't think the LN is the future. I hope someone comes up with something better and actually usable.

[buwaytress]

As I've recently commented in other topics, Lightning on mainnet is only two years old and very much under active development with many aspects still subject to change.  It's not considered "production-ready" to on-ramp the general public yet.  Right now, I'd say its intended audience is largely what tend to be called "power users", or people with a strong technical understanding who know exactly what they're doing.  But over time, as it evolves and the software improves, the learning curve will get a little less steep and it will become more beneficial for the average user to take advantage of.

Yeah, people criticizing it conveniently ignore that LN is hardly what we'd call mature enough to be used by regular users like me. Really, to get to this stage being only 2 years old is pretty amazing in itself. Bitcoin didn't have this much traction in 2011, and we're still struggling to get majority of services onto Segwit (never mind native) so it should be perfectly normal to see LN get even less traction yet we're seeing a lot of positive signs.

[RapTarX]

FYI:
Note many of the so called Shitcoins provide Fixed Onchain Transaction Fees that are cheaper than LN ,
and simple enough anyone can use them. Those so called Shitcoins are the last chance for Satoshi' Dream to occur.
 

Is this true? I guess such shitcoins fee isn't low if you compare the digit? It may be low in comparison with the price since price of the said shitcoins are too low. Moreover, such coins don't have enough tx comparing with bitcoin.

Cons:
- Transparency and security is far more lower. Since LN transaction works to allow numerous transaction outside of the main blockchain.

What's the security flaws you are talking about, some lights? I have little idea about the transparency though.

[Swordsoffreedom]

I know there are a lot of people who are against LN but Lightning network is very useful for me. This will make our BTC's future easier. I think the lightning network has taken BTC's technology a few steps further, because by using lightning network we can transaction instant, this has makes many of our tasks easier and faster. on the other hand, micro-payments are viable in lightning network, it is most helpful for those who do small project on online. On lightning network there are more functions for programming payment, this will make bitcoin easier for us.

[Debonaire217]

I see, bitcoin transactions all over the world is increasing and continuously growing. Lightning network could provide a solution and in simple explanation on how I understood it is that, it works like a telegram. In telegram app, we can send messages directly to our contacts in an instant, in bitcoin network, what we send needs to be confirmed but through lightning network, the time it takes for the transaction to be successful is less, as well as the transaction fee. It's similarity to telegram is that, it recognizes your contacts, or previously conducted transactions to make it easier for the network to find the shortest path between you and the person whom you want to send bitcoins to.

if you want to read more about it, you might visit https://cointelegraph.com/lightning-network-101/what-is-lightning-network-and-how-it-works

[wozzek23]

Many people seem to be fan of LN while any others are directly opposing this. I'm not an old guy here nor I'm a techy guy in bitcoin. I only know the basic which I need. However, so far, LN seems to be a good addition. But why some people say it's not good?
What are the advantage vs disadvantage of LN? Can you please put your opinion? I would love to see the both side.

I have not used the Lightening Network before, although I have used a wallet that has Lightening Network, but you have to activate the Lightening Network feature before it works. It doesn't work in every wallet, only a few of them are carrying that feature.

I have not seen the need for it and I guess I'm okay with the normal Bitcoin transaction speed rate and that's why I don't bother myself about using it. And the way I see it, Lightening Network is not meant for everyone, unless you're a tech geek and you want to go beyond what's already created. I have not seen anyone that is against the lightening network, so I guess it's good, and I don't see anything wrong with it since the main purpose is to make things quick.

[gentlemand]

I've been touching myself over BTC for 7 or so years now. Not for a second has it occurred to me to get into lightning networks. I tried some test versions and none of them worked.

Channels, watch towers, routing. It's all gibberish to me. I'm going to need some major hand holding to consider it.

Of course most of us are not used to seeing things develop in real time like this. We arrived after Bitcoin was up and running. I expect in almost all other areas of life we use stuff oven ready from companies or that's already been battle tested for years by others.

Which means it someone else's problem and obsession for quite some time to come. Wake me up when it's done.

[Wind_FURY]

To the big blockers saying LN will compete in fee collection vs. miners. Is it OK for LN to compete now? Your 1sat/byte coffee-transactions won't be confirmed for another 7 days.

[hv_]

The future of cryptocurrency depends on to Lightning network. Lightning network is a new technology and they are still finding bugs and problems and solving them. Lightning network is still not ready to handle large scale transactions. In lightning network, the real funds are frozen while the value transacts. I'd say there are not any disadvantages with the LN network, just some problems to get solved.

Here's how Harpeet Singh Gauri puts the advantages and disadvantages of LN

Pros of the Lightning Network

Lightning network was invented for speed and lower costs. Although the degree of increased efficiency is still to be known, Layer 2 solutions will generally enable a significant increase in transactions per second Micro payments can be carried out with better efficiency with the lightning network and it will be instantaneous. Lightning network has also started support for altcoins making it horizontally scalable The initial transaction fees in this network are cheaper compared to that of the original bitcoin network Lightning network has the same security as Bitcoin’s main chain while keeping transactions in the layer two till the time they are settled on the main chain.

Cons of the lightning network

Major criticism of LN is that the parties will have to have “fund” the channels. If I shop at a coffee shop, I will have to have so much funds in my channel that connect me to the coffee shop. These funds are just lying dormant until the channel is closed and transaction registered on the main chain – which costs money. A major drawback of the lightning network is that it does not support offline payments. This is an issue to users who do not have internet connectivity 24 hours in a day. There are some experts who believe that Centralization might be encouraged in the payment portals. This makes it quite similar to miner centralisation. Since these transactions are sent off the chain, they aren’t tracked by the main channel, leading to privacy concerns. With all points in perspective, Lightning network serves as a brilliant alternative at this point for Bitcoin transactions.

major con: It is already recon to work as a mixer, so no compliant adoption possible, that it intros a barrier into a very unsecure layer ,that is stupid -

Bitcoin just does all of that without any LN, ...  - on chain (version BSV shows it)

[ChiBitCTy]

I've used the Lightning Network before and it's extremely fast and efficient. It's still got a long ways to go in terms of adoption, availability, user friendliness ( the app I used, only available on android "eclair", is very non-user friendly, it takes some skill to learn how to operate it) but it's potential is so high.  I still have a load of questions about how it will all work when fully implemented, but it's promise is very real.

[Wind_FURY]

major con: It is already recon to work as a mixer, so no compliant adoption possible, that it intros a barrier into a very unsecure layer ,that is stupid -

Bitcoin just does all of that without any LN, ...  - on chain (version BSV shows it)

You also want that we should be thankful to you for teaching us about the real Bitcoin, BSV, and that we should start HODLING this wonderful coin, right?

https://twitter.com/andrespollan/status/1185455536084541441

[Ridwan Fauzi]

Many people seem to be fan of LN while any others are directly opposing this. I'm not an old guy here nor I'm a techy guy in bitcoin. I only know the basic which I need. However, so far, LN seems to be a good addition. But why some people say it's not good?
What are the advantage vs disadvantage of LN? Can you please put your opinion? I would love to see the both side.

Bitcoin is no longer become a payment system and a tool to sending money. Most people will choose an altcoin like Ripple or Matic which have a fast transaction feature and low fees per transaction.

Lightning Network, I was remember when the first time to know bitcoin exactly 2017 ago. I hope this system can be runned sooner at that time but now I have another concern of if especially for security issue. Lightning network will bring bitcoin become centralized not decentralized as we proud of it. So we don't need it anymore, yeah that is my wish as of now.

[superbotolo]

Maybe a stupid question. Wouldn't it be possible to include something like the LN into the BTC protocol? I feel that it's already difficult to convince people to create a BTC wallet...if we have to convince them to also open a LN wallet on top of the BTC we are doubling the obstacles to adoption.

[franky1]

still laughing at the LN fangirl windfury.

people that actually want to use the BTC bitcoin blockchain without huge fee's. the people that dont want to be diverted to other networks.. windfury wants to call them 'centralists' and 'big blockers'

yet those that proposed ONCHAIN scaling.were satisfied with a 2mb block proposal.. without weighty scripts to bloat and decrease transactions.. thus actually allow a true 2x transaction growth

yet windfurys fanclub NEEDED 4mb for their other network divert. but without a 2x tx growth let alone 4x
making windfury the big blocker bloater of spammy scripts and less tx /block

yet those wanting the proposed ONCHAIN scaling. would have made more people to want to protect their funds on chain because they would have been using the chain regularly

yet windfurys fanclub NEEDS people to use lite clients and use custodians on another network. meaning centralising bitcoin while users play with something else

kinda funny how he doesnt even realise the reality
if less people are moving funds onchain. they have less need to secure the chain.
so advertising other networks that dont need to touch the blockchain for months. is more of a divert away from bitcoin. not a incentivise to secure bitcoin.

its just that simple

[Sadlife]

Some people think that it's centralized because the transaction runs on a differenct chain. In my opinion it really is a good second layer solution to Bitcoin congesting transaction and we can see the effects can that the LN brought to the Blockchain network. The only disadvantage it has to me, is not so friendly environment and it's still has no proper GUI.

[Wind_FURY]

still laughing at the LN fangirl windfury.

people that actually want to use the BTC bitcoin blockchain without huge fee's. the people that dont want to be diverted to other networks.. windfury wants to call them 'centralists' and 'big blockers'

Bigger blocks to scale on-chain has its own debate why it's not good for the network's security, franky1.

kinda funny how he doesnt even realise the reality
if less people are moving funds onchain. they have less need to secure the chain.
so advertising other networks that dont need to touch the blockchain for months. is more of a divert away from bitcoin. not a incentivise to secure bitcoin.

its just that simple

Reality? There's already two other "Bitcoin networks" that has hard forked to bigger blocks, BCH and BSV. Why aren't the people, "who actually want to use on-chain transactions WITHOUT huge fees", not using them?

[hv_]

still laughing at the LN fangirl windfury.

people that actually want to use the BTC bitcoin blockchain without huge fee's. the people that dont want to be diverted to other networks.. windfury wants to call them 'centralists' and 'big blockers'

Bigger blocks to scale on-chain has its own debate why it's not good for the network's security, franky1.

kinda funny how he doesnt even realise the reality
if less people are moving funds onchain. they have less need to secure the chain.
so advertising other networks that dont need to touch the blockchain for months. is more of a divert away from bitcoin. not a incentivise to secure bitcoin.

its just that simple

Reality? There's already two other "Bitcoin networks" that has hard forked to bigger blocks, BCH and BSV. Why aren't the people, "who actually want to use on-chain transactions WITHOUT huge fees", not using them?

lol - BSV has highest txs count

and who says that with professional mining setup security goes down? Better DBs / infrastructure are run by many profs (for profit!)  than some funny toy-girls losing coins and wealth on LN and bills

[franky1]

still laughing at the LN fangirl windfury.

people that actually want to use the BTC bitcoin blockchain without huge fee's. the people that dont want to be diverted to other networks.. windfury wants to call them 'centralists' and 'big blockers'

Bigger blocks to scale on-chain has its own debate why it's not good for the network's security, franky1.

kinda funny how he doesnt even realise the reality
if less people are moving funds onchain. they have less need to secure the chain.
so advertising other networks that dont need to touch the blockchain for months. is more of a divert away from bitcoin. not a incentivise to secure bitcoin.
its just that simple

Reality? There's already two other "Bitcoin networks" that has hard forked to bigger blocks, BCH and BSV. Why aren't the people, "who actually want to use on-chain transactions WITHOUT huge fees", not using them?

because those altcoins are not used for merchant services
you cant buy pizza using them altcoins making them useless

you do realise the basics right. that a transaction is only worthwhile if it has a purpose
or are you being spoonfed the stupid narative that btc is just an experiment it doesnt matter if it fails.
yep your friends have said that script so i expect you probably are gonna believe that

however btc is starting to go down that same route of not wanting people to buy things using btc and be just used as a gold vault for people to then play around with custodial notes on another network. measured in a non 8 decimal unit of measure.

but hey if you want to keep playing the 4 year old myth that 2mb-4mb is bad for the network. then why are you still kissing and not biting the ass of the devs that now think 4mb bloat is ok.. (when it suites their agenda)

atleast update your stupid scripts.
you cant argue that 2mb was bad for the network if now 4mb is acceptable.
so drop that myth that the debate was about hard drive bytes. it got debunked in 2017. the day the devs themselves allowed 4mb
your about 3 years out of date with that script. but you still keep pushing it.. atleast recognise that it got debunked the very day core said yes to 4mb weight

what you next have to recognise
a thing your not realising yet is the 4mb allowance of bloat is not actually 4mb of transaction scaling because they kept the implied 1mb base limit for majority of transaction data
meaning its less efficient use of data.
meaning. yep core are wasting more data for unproductive transaction utility

its only bloated scripts(witness/signatures) that are only for a specific set of transaction types.
if you think that loads of people love and want segwit. then read on. and surprise yourself
there is only one main reason why segwit addresses are used. because they 4x up the tx fee of legacy transactions.
take a look at how many USERS are using your beloved LN.
its not millions. its just a few thousand

oh.. by the way.
sipa is stil asking for donations in legacy address.
strange how he doesnt want donations on segwit addresses.. he is the segwit implementer after all

when a chef refuses to eat his own food. dont expect a nice meal

but yet when shown actual things like devs allowing 4mb bloat that debunks your 2mb is bad myth
when show that not everyone is even using segwit addresses
when shown that the adoption for LN is not huge for users. but large for custodians. you have to atleast start to see reality. and stop just kissing ass to particular companies/devs

...
and to pre empt your next script. because you already hinted it, and your just repeating doomad propaganda scripts
you probably going to double down and say 'if you dont like core control. go play with another network'
sorry but that game dont play with me
im sticking with btc. but gonna keep highlighting the ignorant people that want people off the network. and the controlling few that are not helping bitcoin scale (emphasis bitcoin(BTC) not other networks)

[kemoglo]

The future of cryptocurrency depends on to Lightning network. Lightning network is a new technology and they are still finding bugs and problems and solving them. Lightning network is still not ready to handle large scale transactions. In lightning network, the real funds are frozen while the value transacts. I'd say there are not any disadvantages with the LN network, just some problems to get solved.

Here's how Harpeet Singh Gauri puts the advantages and disadvantages of LN

Pros of the Lightning Network

Lightning network was invented for speed and lower costs. Although the degree of increased efficiency is still to be known, Layer 2 solutions will generally enable a significant increase in transactions per second Micro payments can be carried out with better efficiency with the lightning network and it will be instantaneous. Lightning network has also started support for altcoins making it horizontally scalable The initial transaction fees in this network are cheaper compared to that of the original bitcoin network Lightning network has the same security as Bitcoin’s main chain while keeping transactions in the layer two till the time they are settled on the main chain.

Cons of the lightning network

Major criticism of LN is that the parties will have to have “fund” the channels. If I shop at a coffee shop, I will have to have so much funds in my channel that connect me to the coffee shop. These funds are just lying dormant until the channel is closed and transaction registered on the main chain – which costs money. A major drawback of the lightning network is that it does not support offline payments. This is an issue to users who do not have internet connectivity 24 hours in a day. There are some experts who believe that Centralization might be encouraged in the payment portals. This makes it quite similar to miner centralisation. Since these transactions are sent off the chain, they aren’t tracked by the main channel, leading to privacy concerns. With all points in perspective, Lightning network serves as a brilliant alternative at this point for Bitcoin transactions.

I've seen different networks like Lumino and such which are similar in principle to Lightning network, I wonder, do all these face the same pros and cons or are these just particular to Lightning?