What part will the Lightning Network play in the upcoming bull run?

[barto123]

As we enter the next bull run the price of on-chain TX's will inevitably rise, firstly due to the price & secondly due to network congestion. Also there's quiet a few services that haven't implemented Segwit *cough* Binance.

In my opinion Lightning Network is nowhere near ready for global adoption, however it is a good conduit to free up the TX mempool. There's also a bunch of other off-chain/2nd layer solutions but let's be honest Lightning is currently leading the way.

Personally I've opened a bunch of lightning channels anticipating this fee rise, however it's still an uncertainty how it will all play out. Maybe channels become too expensive to open for the average person & custodial wallets become this next best thing?

Interested in the community's opinion on this.

[Wind_FURY]

Hub and spoke model first, before decentralizing.

I believe that custodial wallets, like BlueWallet for mobile, WILL become the main solution, if users want a fast, cheap, and a convenient way to use Lightning.

[mk4]

It's pretty safe to assume that a huge percentage of bitcoin being moved are just moving in and out of exchanges. I don't think lightning will help THAT significantly unless huge global exchanges themselves such as Binance actually implements Lightning.

Unfortunately, assuming an actual bull run occurs, if it's either this year or next year, I'm guessing that the mempool will once again be heavily congested.

[coupable]

I believe that custodial wallets, like BlueWallet for mobile, WILL become the main solution, if users want a fast, cheap, and a convenient way to use Lightning.

I don't think so. Like MK4 said, the majority of txs are made on main chain in and out from exchanges. The problem with lightening network is that it doesn't support transactions with big amounts (i have tried blue wallet) and that it's not friendly use among new users and among experienced users ws well.
In the upcoming bull run, LN won't be the next revolution. It still need improvement and maintain.

[hatshepsut93]

Personally I've opened a bunch of lightning channels anticipating this fee rise, however it's still an uncertainty how it will all play out. Maybe channels become too expensive to open for the average person & custodial wallets become this next best thing?

If you are regularly making transactions to services that work with LN, then great, using it would indeed help you. But if not, you will have to specifically look for alternative services that work with LN, which might be impossible in many cases. So, LN adoption by services is the bottleneck here, and right now there is a reason to not adopt LN from their point of view - it's still considered to be in beta and the devs themselves are advising from using it with big amounts on mainnet. Until this changes, it would be hard for LN to have influence on fees.

[ChiBitCTy]

As we enter the next bull run the price of on-chain TX's will inevitably rise, firstly due to the price & secondly due to network congestion. Also there's quiet a few services that haven't implemented Segwit *cough* Binance.

In my opinion Lightning Network is nowhere near ready for global adoption, however it is a good conduit to free up the TX mempool. There's also a bunch of other off-chain/2nd layer solutions but let's be honest Lightning is currently leading the way.

Personally I've opened a bunch of lightning channels anticipating this fee rise, however it's still an uncertainty how it will all play out. Maybe channels become too expensive to open for the average person & custodial wallets become this next best thing?

Interested in the community's opinion on this.

How much does it cost to open up a Lightning Network Channel?  I've only ever used one before, and it was certainly amazing, but I just dont understand why this is taking so long to progress.  It's the same thing with SegWit, doesn't seem like it's progressed much.  I don't think it will have much to do with an  upcoming bull run, most people have no idea what it even is , let alone close to using it.

[RapTarX]

Lightning Network is yet to be mass used because very few people are familiar with it, nor it is widely accepted most of the renowned services. May be in next bull run, we will see the arise of LN because people will be looking for cheaper way to send/receive BTC.

[BrewMaster]

Also there's quiet a few services that haven't implemented Segwit *cough* Binance.

it surprises me that people are still using these services ... happily!
it is not like SegWit were introduced a couple of weeks ago. no it has been 3 years already. that is a LONG time and at this point any service that still hasn't implemented SegWit is intentionally not doing it and it is our duty to find out WHY and stop using such services.

In my opinion Lightning Network is nowhere near ready for global adoption, however it is a good conduit to free up the TX mempool.

i agree but i am afraid that it may not be enough. in fact if LN gets popular we may even end up seeing a bigger number of on-chain transaction.

custodial wallets become this next best thing?

that would be the death of bitcoin in my opinion, because that is direct and complete centralization.

Interested in the community's opinion on this.

i don't think LN is going to be ready for the upcoming bull run because that is already starting while LN is far from being ready. maybe near the end by the time we are seeing the next bubble, we can see LN ready too.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe that custodial wallets, like BlueWallet for mobile, WILL become the main solution, if users want a fast, cheap, and a convenient way to use Lightning.

I don't think so. Like MK4 said, the majority of txs are made on main chain in and out from exchanges. The problem with lightening network is that it doesn't support transactions with big amounts (i have tried blue wallet) and that it's not friendly use among new users and among experienced users ws well.
In the upcoming bull run, LN won't be the next revolution. It still need improvement and maintain.

No, I didn't say anythng about anything "revolutionary". I was merely talking about how Lightning could MAINLY be used, IF implemented by merchants/Bitcoin services. Ordinary users won't run a Bitcoin full node/Lightning node.

[Haunebu]

that is a LONG time and at this point any service that still hasn't implemented SegWit is intentionally not doing it and it is our duty to find out WHY and stop using such services.

Rebelling against a top exchange like Binance is not that simple especially for something like Segwit etc.

May be in next bull run, we will see the arise of LN because people will be looking for cheaper way to send/receive BTC.

I doubt it. The lightning network is only feasible when small payments are made by users who transact regularly which is why big payments will most likely always be a problem here.

Exchanges handle such big payments without any issues and I don't think this will change anytime soon.

[amishmanish]

When the bull run happens, the congestion inevitably happens because of newbies FOMOing and holders looking to sell at their target prices. What else in your opinion causes the congestion??

Its not like suddenly everyone starts using bitcoin to buy coffee. So it would be illogical to think that a bull run will inevitably have congestion. The congestion in 2017 was also due to the unique combination of an ATH and an ICO market with everyone looking to send in their payment first to get the most "tokens". Nothing of that sort exists today.

I don't think the LN will play any role once the bull market comes. Its reverse infact. The bull market may only come if LN starts playing an actual role. Why else would we witness a bull market when the usage is same?? Everyone is just so sure that history will repeat without the same kind of circumstances. MADNESS, I say.

[Lucius]

In my opinion Lightning Network is nowhere near ready for global adoption, however it is a good conduit to free up the TX mempool. There's also a bunch of other off-chain/2nd layer solutions but let's be honest Lightning is currently leading the way.

If you think that LN is still far from being widely used, then the role of this protocol is almost non-existent in terms of influencing the next bull run. Let’s be honest, the average user still doesn’t know what SegWit is, not to mention the native vs. nested versions, and LN is even too complicated for slightly more experienced users.

What I see as the biggest problem in the next big bull run is that regardless of the protocols, exchanges probably won't be able to withstand the pressure on their infrastructure - so it won't matter if someone uses a Legacy address or an LN.

[Carlton Banks]

If you think that LN is still far from being widely used, then the role of this protocol is almost non-existent in terms of influencing the next bull run. Let’s be honest, the average user still doesn’t know what SegWit is, not to mention the native vs. nested versions, and LN is even too complicated for slightly more experienced users.

sure but how much trade do average users conduct on exchanges? The clients with the largest amount of trading activity will also be on the more sophisticated end of the scale when it comes to technical abilities, and regular traders are more incentivized to cut down marginal costs of business (represented here by the risk of keeping funds in exchange controlled accounts and trading/depositing fees)


All such friction can be done away with if a p2p trading platform implements Lightning. This would mean first solving the costless call options problem, which is inherent to the HLTC-based channels that power the lightning network. If that happens (maybe someone already has?), then a blazing fast p2p marketplace could enable near-instant inter-cryptocurrency trades settlement, putting centralized exchanges at a significant disadvantage when it comes to setting the price of cryptocurrencies (imagine a trustless version of the old shapeshift website if you don't understand what I mean).

Such a platform would then force the more questionable centralized/fiat exchanges to introduce Lightning deposits too. This would help to shift the volume of cryptocurrency trading completely away from the exchanges who comply with regulation regimes, and so I imagine they would eventually find some politically expedient way of following suit, or lose their influence (and thus importance) in the marketplace.

I don't see the final stage of these predictions taking place before the next bull run, but it's not even a sure thing that we will see a bull run when everyone is expecting it (indeed, it's perhaps more sensible to expect it when the general sentiment is against it)

[amishmanish]

In my opinion Lightning Network is nowhere near ready for global adoption, however it is a good conduit to free up the TX mempool. There's also a bunch of other off-chain/2nd layer solutions but let's be honest Lightning is currently leading the way.

If you think that LN is still far from being widely used, then the role of this protocol is almost non-existent in terms of influencing the next bull run. Let’s be honest, the average user still doesn’t know what SegWit is, not to mention the native vs. nested versions, and LN is even too complicated for slightly more experienced users.

If the major exchanges and services were to promote SegWit as a way to save transaction costs, more users would be coming on board. For this, the multiple exchanges and routing services benefiting from bitcoin should be doing more. Earlier, there used to be a lot of community driven advocacy of such issues on r/bitcoin, crypto-twitter etc. There was regular encouragement about adoption and on-boarding merchants. Does anybody else think that bitcoin is sort of losing ground here? Or maybe my twitter feed isn't tuned in..!

I have sent a PM to you regarding a trust issue. Have you seen it? It'd be nice to have a reply..Thanks..

[Wind_FURY]

If you think that LN is still far from being widely used, then the role of this protocol is almost non-existent in terms of influencing the next bull run. Let’s be honest, the average user still doesn’t know what SegWit is, not to mention the native vs. nested versions, and LN is even too complicated for slightly more experienced users.

sure but how much trade do average users conduct on exchanges? The clients with the largest amount of trading activity will also be on the more sophisticated end of the scale when it comes to technical abilities, and regular traders are more incentivized to cut down marginal costs of business (represented here by the risk of keeping funds in exchange controlled accounts and trading/depositing fees)


All such friction can be done away with if a p2p trading platform implements Lightning. This would mean first solving the costless call options problem, which is inherent to the HLTC-based channels that power the lightning network. If that happens (maybe someone already has?), then a blazing fast p2p marketplace could enable near-instant inter-cryptocurrency trades settlement, putting centralized exchanges at a significant disadvantage when it comes to setting the price of cryptocurrencies (imagine a trustless version of the old shapeshift website if you don't understand what I mean).

Such a platform would then force the more questionable centralized/fiat exchanges to introduce Lightning deposits too. This would help to shift the volume of cryptocurrency trading completely away from the exchanges who comply with regulation regimes, and so I imagine they would eventually find some politically expedient way of following suit, or lose their influence (and thus importance) in the marketplace.

I don't see the final stage of these predictions taking place before the next bull run, but it's not even a sure thing that we will see a bull run when everyone is expecting it (indeed, it's perhaps more sensible to expect it when the general sentiment is against it)

That's ideal, but I'm not that optimistic for a high-liquidity p2p trading platform. I stand by the theory that we debated in the Lightning Network FAQ topic. Liquidity in Lightning would depend on users' capital, and capital is limited.

[Lucius]

~snip~

Somehow it does not seem that large exchanges are interested in any attempt to implement LN in the near future, because if I'm not mistaken, Binance has not yet enabled SegWit to its users. Can we conclude that LN is technically much more demanding than SegWit, and that this is the biggest obstacle when it comes to implementing such a service not only on crypto exchanges, but also with ordinary users?

I am fully aware that Bitcoin cannot thrive at least in terms of means of payment when it comes to fees and speed of confirmations, because even today many live in the belief that anything over $0.10 is too much, but they forget about the fees they pay to banks, and that some international transfers can take 5-7 days.

I hope that LN will be something completely normal in a period of 5 to 10 years from now.

[kryptqnick]

As we enter the next bull run the price of on-chain TX's will inevitably rise, firstly due to the price & secondly due to network congestion. Also there's quiet a few services that haven't implemented Segwit *cough* Binance.

In my opinion Lightning Network is nowhere near ready for global adoption, however it is a good conduit to free up the TX mempool. There's also a bunch of other off-chain/2nd layer solutions but let's be honest Lightning is currently leading the way.

Personally I've opened a bunch of lightning channels anticipating this fee rise, however it's still an uncertainty how it will all play out. Maybe channels become too expensive to open for the average person & custodial wallets become this next best thing?

Interested in the community's opinion on this.

I don't think the bull run is starting. Bitcoin's been fluctuating like this for a while, and if anything it's been quite stable lately if you look at 7-day price difference from time to time. However, the problem of transaction fees increasing is very real, even if it is postponed. While I don't know anything better than the LN, I don't think the LN will succeed in terms of global adoption because it is unappealing to at least two groups of people. It's not good for newbies because it's not easy to use. And as for those who have no difficulties with how to use the LN, there is a solid amount of people among these that would never use it for ideological reasons ('not Bitcoin', centralization).

[mk4]

Can we conclude that LN is technically much more demanding than SegWit, and that this is the biggest obstacle when it comes to implementing such a service not only on crypto exchanges, but also with ordinary users?

It definitely most likely is. I really don't think that's the problem though. I'm personally not convinced that Binance doesn't have the manpower and it's definitely a lot more impossible that Binance doesn't have the funds, to pay for SegWit and Lightning implementation. It's mostly the chicken and the egg problem: Why implement lightning if no one is using it? But at the same time, why would people use lightning if they couldn't use it on what bitcoin is mostly used for- exchanges? It's a dilemma.

[Charles-Tim]

It definitely most likely is. I really don't think that's the problem though. I'm personally not convinced that Binance doesn't have the manpower and it's definitely a lot more impossible that Binance doesn't have the funds, to pay for SegWit and Lightning implementation. It's mostly the chicken and the egg problem: Why implement lightning if no one is using it? But at the same time, why would people use lightning if they couldn't use it on what bitcoin is mostly used for- exchanges? It's a dilemma.

Lightning network main useful purpose is to buy and sell frequently, even, it is only good for low transactions amount like pay for coffee, paying in the cinema and buying from shopping mall etc. Because bitcoin transaction fee is high, it can not be used for these purpose and that is the main reason for lightning network, because you can use it at a very cheap transaction fee and at faster time. There are many lightning network wallets, it is commonly used in countries that make use of bitcoin daily for frequent transactions. So, seeing this from one side is not enough.

[Wind_FURY]

~snip~

Somehow it does not seem that large exchanges are interested in any attempt to implement LN in the near future, because if I'm not mistaken, Binance has not yet enabled SegWit to its users. Can we conclude that LN is technically much more demanding than SegWit, and that this is the biggest obstacle when it comes to implementing such a service not only on crypto exchanges, but also with ordinary users?

I am fully aware that Bitcoin cannot thrive at least in terms of means of payment when it comes to fees and speed of confirmations, because even today many live in the belief that anything over $0.10 is too much, but they forget about the fees they pay to banks, and that some international transfers can take 5-7 days.

I hope that LN will be something completely normal in a period of 5 to 10 years from now.

Because Lightning liquidity is only currently OK for small "coffee-transactions", not for traders sending $100,000 of Bitcoins to an exchange, who don't care about the $20.00 on-chain fee.