Why is SegWit and LN adoption still low today?

[hatshepsut93]

SegWit adoption isn't 100% because a ton of Bitcoin transaction is made by centralized services, and they have this "if it ain't broken, don't touch it" mentality. Plus they don't pay fees themselves, they charge their customers for any network fees, and customers have no choice but to pay them.

For Lightning network, it's still officially in beta and it can be tricky from the point of view of service providers. If the devs rushed it and said it's officially ready to be adopted on mainnet, and then the bugs appeared and people lost money, it would have damaged LN's reputation.

[logfiles]

From a personal point of view, Most wallets and exchanges adopting segwit made it much easier for me to get used to it but for the case of LN, I must admit i don't even know how I can use it. If i have been using Bitcoin for 3 year and still have no idea how to set up LN channels and other stuff. Imagine what a newbie is going through 

LN seems a little more technical and requires one to be more enlightened about it before they can use it.
Anyway one of my next targets is learning about it... But looking at myself. I really think one of the reasons why LN is not highly adopted is because of its technicality and lack of enough awareness among bitcoin users. Many wallets and services would help with this by supporting LN just like they have done with segwit

[Ryker1]

Well, using Segwit addresses are now in mass adoption because of known wallet that can able to use segwit wallet. The reason probably of slowly adoption is just because the legacy address is not supported Segwit, you can't able to send a transaction to the Segwit address if you are using Legacy address. That is the difference because they are not yet friendly to each other. When it comes to Light Network, --it is very techy stuff, if you don't have enough experience using this sending method, you must be careful because it perhaps lost your bitcoin is just a single snap. That is why people don't use this LN, only those people who already have knowledge on LN usage.

[logfiles]

Well, using Segwit addresses are now in mass adoption because of known wallet that can able to use segwit wallet. The reason probably of slowly adoption is just because the legacy address is not supported Segwit, you can't able to send a transaction to the Segwit address if you are using Legacy address. That is the difference because they are not yet friendly to each other.

This is not true You can send a transaction from a segwit address to a legacy address and vice versa without any problems. They only difference between using segwit and legacy addresses in transactions is a slight change in the size of the transaction in bytes and thus total bitcoin transaction fees.

[joniboini]

When it comes to Light Network, --it is very techy stuff, if you don't have enough experience using this sending method, you must be careful because it perhaps lost your bitcoin is just a single snap. That is why people don't use this LN, only those people who already have knowledge on LN usage.

Man, if you're careless when typing the address of the recipient then any coins could be lost. LN is not that techy, just a bit 'annoying' since you have to find channel to route your payment. This is why the usage is still not high. Not because it's some complicated high-level code stuff where only the big brain can use it.

[Kakmakr]

There are multiple reasons for this... The Bitcoin community are very divided and we saw that with the fork with Bitcoin Cash... everyone have a different opinion on how to scale Bitcoin for more adoption and how to increase the transaction speed.

The other reason is that a lot of people are scared of change and Bitcoin is already intimidating and challenging enough for most people.. so to add Lighting Network on top of that, makes things even more difficult.

They will have to integrate the Lightning Network that it is a seamless addition to Bitcoin and not something that needs to complicate things even further. 

[Eureka_07]

Segwits are still not that popular than you think they are.
Many people are still unaware of it's existence. I take my self as an example, I just found out about segwit just very recently.
A lot are still using the traditional address since it supports all flatforms.
On the otherhand, SegWit and LN are not yet widely supported.

So I guess that's the main reason why they still has slow adoption, unpopularity.

[ranochigo]

Save for a few sites, most of those using Bitcoin has already adopted Bitcoin, be it native segwit or segwit-nested-P2SH. The adoption of segwit is certainly not as small as you think. The adoption would only increase further when people realise that their fees are much higher than those using segwit.

LN, on the other hand doesn't really have a huge userbase. It's primarily because a lot of the merchants and sites aren't adopting it yet. To be fair, as compared to segwit, it does take a bit more resources to accept LN transactions. Don't be mistaken though, the transaction volume on LN is not that small.

[gentlemand]

LN, on the other hand doesn't really have a huge userbase. It's primarily because a lot of the merchants and sites aren't adopting it yet. To be fair, as compared to segwit, it does take a bit more resources to accept LN transactions. Don't be mistaken though, the transaction volume on LN is not that small.

Users aren't either. It's like anything, it has a conversion rate. There are steps between thinking about the idea and using the idea and perhaps the reasonable number of people who have investigated the idea then fell away due to confusion or disenchantment before becoming a regular user. It's not as straightforward a sell as vanilla BTC.

[pawanjain]

I would say that the Lightning Network is not well established yet and it is still in it's early stage.
I guess this is why it's adoption rate is low in today's date. Segwit on the other hand is well established and used by many people.
I don't think it's adoption rate is low since most of the people in the crypto community do have a segwit address.
Segwit is cheaper which is why most people tend to use it.

[franky1]

the reason is simple
LN is not bitcoin but another network. a less secure network

no one in bitcoin has ever lost funds due to middlemen taking their coins off the blockchain
but people handing funds over to custodians. and then playing with units of measure on other networks/systems allows many oppertunities for abuse

even the LN devs have lost funds while using LN

the point of bitcoin was that people dont lose funds by just closing their client, or getting disconnected or being offline while a partner messes around

LN relies on middlemen and would require people being online and monitoring each transaction and also learning to read raw tx data to make sure they are not signing something they dont realise(especially if you have been coerced to use a specific client the channel partner chooses)

bitcoin doesnt require all this stuff and is more stable and secure be default
when you have to rely on the 'trust' of a counterparty/middlemen (channel partner/watchtower) you instantly know that LN is flawed and nothing like bitcoin

bitcoin is like storing gold in a vault only you have the combination to
LN is having a joint bank account with a wife that has a affair with the milkman and a pool boy where you have to always be monitoring what your wife is doing with the funds and also ask her permission when you want to spend your funds..where she has to send the funds to the milkman and the pool boy and not directly o the destination. thus more flaws/oppertunities of loss

its just not the same thing
also its alot harder for your wife to get to your vaulted gold than it is to grab your bank account funds in a divorce

[TimeTeller]

the reason is simple
LN is not bitcoin but another network. a less secure network

no one in bitcoin has ever lost funds due to middlemen taking their coins off the blockchain
but people handing funds over to custodians. and then playing with units of measure on other networks/systems allows many oppertunities for abuse

even the LN devs have lost funds while using LN

the point of bitcoin was that people dont lose funds by just closing their client, or getting disconnected or being offline while a partner messes around

LN relies on middlemen and would require people being online and monitoring each transaction and also learning to read raw tx data to make sure they are not signing something they dont realise(especially if you have been coerced to use a specific client the channel partner chooses)

bitcoin doesnt require all this stuff and is more stable and secure be default
when you have to rely on the 'trust' of a counterparty/middlemen (channel partner/watchtower) you instantly know that LN is flawed and nothing like bitcoin

bitcoin is like storing gold in a vault only you have the combination to
LN is having a joint bank account with a wife that has a affair with the milkman and a pool boy where you have to always be monitoring what your wife is doing with the funds and also ask her permission when you want to spend your funds..where she has to send the funds to the milkman and the pool boy and not directly o the destination. thus more flaws/oppertunities of loss

its just not the same thing
also its alot harder for your wife to get to your vaulted gold than it is to grab your bank account funds in a divorce

I can say that's a very nice and detailed logical example of what's going on with LN transaction.
And that's the reason why a lot are still hesitant in utilizing the LN network.
They still prefer the old way, but SegWit is now becoming popular.
So maybe LN adoption is still low, but SegWit is growing these days.

[Wawa2013]

I am one of those who disagree with the opinion that SegWit adoption is still low, because it is based on the results of the survey
I read several articles on the internet, state that 80% of exchanges and wallets support SegWit. Then regarding Lightning Network
adoption I agree that adoption is very low, especially for merchants. Probably because the Lightning Network is very complex and
still deep the process is under development, therefore most of the people who adopt the Lightning Network are advanced users.

[sheenshane]

I disagree with Segwit's low adoption, I can show proof from blockchair.com chart Segwit address usage.

It shows in the chart that from the beginning until now there was an improvement of usage. There is also 66% after BitMEX embraces upgrade.

About the Lightning Network or LN, I think the adoption are very slow because this might very hard to imply and for the non techy people usually don't try with this rather than they might get sucks their Bitcoin. All I can say, it needs more time to understand this LN to the crypto enthusiasts.

[DooMAD]

I'm honestly not expecting LN adoption to be that high yet.  At the moment, a large proportion of users are either accumulating and hodling BTC, or storing their BTC in an exchange in order to day-trade.  They simply don't have a regular need for cheap transactions.  At the same time, LN is still relatively new and experimental.  Some clients still have a steep learning curve for casual users.  People who are inexperienced with Bitcoin may find the user interface and general concept difficult to understand.  

Once BTC progresses to a stage where a larger number of users are actually spending their BTC like a currency and merchant adoption is also more widespread, there will be a greater incentive to use LN.  And by that time, hopefully all the various clients will have simple and easy-to-use interfaces that even the most ardent technophobe can comprehend.

[franky1]

doomad still trying to claim LN is bitcoin

LN is a separate network that different courrencies can utilise
think of LN as visa.. not dollar.. but visa
its a network to use a digitised symbolism of dollar on and also pounds and yen. but its not actually yen, not dollar, not pounds

those pounds,yen,dollar are locked into vaults and whats being played around with on the visa/ln network is another unit of measure

LN has 12 decimals .. bitcoin only has 8
a HTLC is the 12 decimal unit that cannot be broadcast to the bitcoin network
the HTLC are aggregated at the end of a session into a proper bitcoin transaction
even at the session end the proper bitcoin transaction is not guaranteed payment as it has not been confirmed yet

EG
i just wrote a tx giving doomad 10btc.. .. he didnt get it because i didnt broadcast it and it didnt get confirmed. thus. its not his 10btc

handing a cheque to your wife is not paying her. because you can then ask her to rip up the cheque and give her a new cheque. or spend the funds in your bank before she cashes the cheque

a true dollar/bitcoin payment is when it has cleared/confirmed
just like visa settle up with the banks each day your 'pending balance' is not the true balance its a possible balance. you have to wait for it to finalise before you know for sure

the main issue with not understanding LN is when some particular people try to oversell and under promise LN and try to claim that it is bitcoin and that its just as secure.

LN is not bitcoin. just like mastercard/visa is not the dollar. yes its a multicurrency tool that can be used to do things faster than handling real currency. but dont define it as the real currency, as that is just misleading

if its not on the blockchain. it didnt happen.
if its not confirmed as your sole ownership. it aint yours

emphasis: even the LN devs themselves have lost funds on LN.. and they meant to be the experts

last fun fact to note
sipa, (the inventor of segwit) still asks for donations on a legacy address. even with many years and opportunities to update.

[DooMAD]

LN is a separate network that different courrencies can utilise

Can utilise.  May not actually utilise in practice, though.  At least not yet.  Network effects mean that it simply isn't viable to use LN in a practical fashion unless there are enough users to make payments to or route payments through.  LTC has a little bit of LN usage.  But most other LN-capable alts have negligible usage.  Good luck finding someone to pay on those networks.  I don't know how many more times you need this point reiterated before you stop repeating the same nonsense in EVERY SINGLE LN TOPIC EVER like a braindead parrot.

LN is primarily a Bitcoin feature and will be for some time.  LTC may catch up at some point, but I have a sneaking suspicion most of the other LN-capable alts are never going to get out of the starting gates.  There simply isn't enough interest in real-world spending of those altcoins.  You're living in a dream world, as usual.

[franky1]

doomad i know your a LN devotee and trying everytime to really promote LN. but people want actual facts of the issues. not the salespitch promotion

its good that your starting to tone down your salepitches. but you have a long way to go.

what your not realising is the 'banker model' at play. well maybe you do realise it but dont want to talk about it/admit it

the banker model is like this
having independant 'users' with channels for a 'hop model' of routing wont come to fruition. devs are looking more to the lite wallet version for users where people deposit funds into factories/watchtowers and have those custodians then manage the channels as full nodes. (hub and spoke model)

with the devs wanting an ever increasing fee onchain(something even you have promoted as a thing you desire too) the next game is to tell people its going to cost $xx to settle a htlc back to btc or they can settle it to ltc for $0.X.
this is how bankers told people not to take their gold home but instead keep the bank notes(HTLC IOU) or convert to another currency

so atleast please stop saying LN depends on users being routes. because users wont/shouldnt be locking up huge hoards to be middlemen, especially with the many ways that people can abuse the features of LN to make users lose funds

devs have abandoned the hop model and are now concentrating on the banker custodian hub and spoke model
so try to atleast be informative about LN and not promotive about trying to sucker people into it

[DooMAD]

doomad i know your a LN devotee and trying everytime to really promote LN. but people want actual facts of the issues. not the salespitch promotion

They also don't want unscrupulous liars misleading them by dishonestly equivocating that using LN on Vertcoin is going to be the same experience as using it on BTC.  The FACT is that those experiences will be nothing alike and it is incredibly disingenuous of you to say in every single LN topic that has ever been started on this board that it's the same thing.  Stop trying to talk about facts when all you have is misinformation, you repugnant troll.  You're already banned from one subforum due to your conduct.  Keep up the sterling work and hopefully one day we'll be rid of you completely.

having independant 'users' with channels for a 'hop model' of routing wont come to fruition. devs are looking more to the lite wallet version for users where people deposit funds into factories/watchtowers and have those custodians then manage the channels as full nodes. (hub and spoke model)

(...)

devs have abandoned the hop model and are now concentrating on the banker custodian hub and spoke model
so try to atleast be informative about LN and not promotive about trying to sucker people into it

Devs are looking into lots of options.  I know you aren't a fan of freedom, being a totalitarian fascist like you are when it comes to things like open-source development.  But please keep in mind the the decisions aren't yours to make and anything that provides more choice for users is welcome.  The option to deposit funds into the custody of a third party will always be a choice, not a requirement.  But you're always too busy trying to spread FUD for inconvenient truths like that to be acknowledged.  Funny how we don't see you wading into every single topic about exchanges to discuss the pitfalls of custodianship, where there is no other choice.  I guess you just can't help being duplicitous.  At least LN will give people the option.

If the ability to transact peer-to-peer without middlemen in LN is ever removed, then you can realistically claim that devs have "abandoned" the hop model.  Until then, you're just being a compulsive liar.  When are you going to tone down your anti-salespitch to make it at least vaguely truthful and not a load of mindless drivel that's easily debunked.  The more you do this, the more it makes you look like a raving proselytiser for an old, dead religion.  

If you ever want BTC to be used as a currency, LN is the most efficient and sensible way to achieve that goal.  Give up with your "double blocks faster" mindset that should have died out 4 years ago.  That outdated concept will never scale efficiently and would cause massive centralisation if it were ever attempted on a non-shitcoin that people actually use.  

[Abiky]

I know some people have their systems still with the legacy systems and doesn't support pure Segwit yet. And I think they are nowhere near changing their systems anytime soon, and that's just the reality. They need the effort to improve systems, and I think it's not their priority right now.

Anyways, personally I use SegWit but not LN yet. I read a topic here that someone lost 4 BTC just because of LN, and that's only one of the reasons why it's not however applied everywhere. There are still factors to consider like it's the bugs, etc. I haven't dabbled deep into it, maybe in the future when it's more stable.

That's certainly true, mate. Transitioning from legacy systems to modern ones is not an easy process. Some crypto service providers prefer to deal with legacy Bitcoin addresses because of the already-established infrastructure. Despite the fact that the majority of Bitcoin users are still in the legacy system (AFAIK), SegWit adoption is rising at a slow and steady pace. I think that within a couple of years from now, the whole Bitcoin network will be running on SegWit (almost).

As far as the Lightning Network goes, it's still an experimental Layer-Two scaling solution for Bitcoin. This means it's still not ready for use in the mainstream world. Sending large amounts of Bitcoin to the Lightning Network will turn out to be extremely risky to the end user. I guess that this (alongside a steep learning curve) is what has made the adoption of the LN so low these days. I'm still confident that we'll get there someday as the LN develops over time. There are a lot of channels open and lots of Bitcoin are locked on the LN. It's a good sign that it'll grow in mainstream adoption over time. But it's up to the developers of the Bitcoin project and the community itself, to let the world know about the true benefits of SegWit and LN. Otherwise, people will continue to use legacy Bitcoin addresses and on-chain payments which are expensive and slow. Now that numerous crypto companies and startups are making use of SegWit more thoroughly, it should only be a matter of time before adoption goes all the way to the moon. Just my thoughts