Is the Lightning network working?

[devel_blockchain]

I am following the development of the lightning network, but its main vulnerabilities have not yet been resolved.

Is the Lightning network safe to use?

[shield132]

Lighting network is as safe as just normal, typical bitcoin transaction. To be more specific, the lighting network adds another layer on bitcoin's blockchain and payment channel is created, that allows users to send transactions quickly. So, without doubt, it's working and everything is alright, the only problem that we face is that LN isn't adopted as it should be and somehow, people still prefer to pay insane fees instead of transactions through Lighting Network.

I think it will be good for you to have a look at this article: Bitcoin Lightning Network Specs Pass First ‘Formal’ Security Test

[erikoy]

I also have some question with LN since it is not widely used by bitcoin community relying only most on centralized wallets or exchange in their everyday daily bitocin expenses.

Is it supported different wallet addresses?
Does it need to be online both parties to proceed with transaction or it could be done just like the normal bitcoin transactions with other wallets decentralized or centralized?

[pawanjain]

Lightning network is doing pretty good as compared to it's earlier stages. It's not rocket science that every technology takes it's own time to be well established.
The lightning network has not gone mainstream yet but is doing a good progress in my opinion.
The last time I heard a news about the lightning network was the Lightning Labs had announced a marketplace for payment channel liquidity.

Bitcoin’s Lightning Network Is Getting a Marketplace for Payment Channel Liquidity

You can find more news on lightning network below

https://www.coindesk.com/tag/lightning-network
https://cointelegraph.com/search?query=lightning%20network

[mocacinno]

Well... I'd like to chip in here..

Saying that the lightning network is just as safe as a "normal" transaction is a bit of a stretch... It's possible for one party to broadcast an older channel state...

In a VERY simplified form (disregarding fees and a lot of technical details), what happens is the following:

Bob and Alice start a channel between their lightning nodes: they broadcast a transaction to the network funding their channel with (for example) 1 bitcoin. Very simplified, this basically means they create a new multisig address. They fund this address with 1 BTC, which can only be spent by a transaction that's signed by both Bob and Alice.
They exchange and both sign a transaction that spends the funding tx's output to fund Bob's address with 0.5 btc and Alice's address also with 0.5 BTC...
They do not broadcast this tx

One day Bob sends 0.1 btc to Allice by paying a lightning invoice. What happens?
They exchange and both sign a transaction that spend the funding tx's output and funds Bob's wallet with 0.4 btc to and 0.6 btc to Alice's wallet...
They do not broadcast this tx

Later on, Bob receives 0.2 btc from Allice by paying a lightning invoice. What happens?
They exchange and both sign a transaction that spend the funding tx's output and funds Bob's wallet with 0.6 btc to and 0.4 btc to Alice's wallet...
They do not broadcast this tx

Now, they close the channel.
In an ideal world, they would broadcast the final transaction... But Alice has an incentive to cheat: if she does not broadcast the LAST tx, but the one before that, her address would be funded with 0.6 btc. If she's honest, it'll be funded with 0.4 btc.

Now, the way the lightning network solves this is: if Alice broadcast the previous tx, bob has a certain amount of time to prove there is a more recent transaction aswell, so Alice must have cheated. In this case, Bob receives 1 BTC and Alice receives nothing. So, Alice *can* cheat, but she'll receive a penalty.
But what if Alice knows Bob has passed away??? What if she's 100% sure Bob's node will never ever come online again???
Bitcoin transactions are final... If i fund an address whose private key is only known by you with 1 BTC, it's final, it's immutable... If i send 0.1 BTC to you by paying a lightning invoice, i can still try to cheat (but risk losing all funds if i do so).
This is why the lightning network is designed for micro payments... Don't send thousands of dollars worth of btc to somebody else over the lightning network... Use it to buy a coffee... Use it to pay for shared hosting.... Use it to buy a magazine... Don't use it to buy a new car...

Lightning is pretty safe, it's faster and it's cheaper than using the main net... But i would never go as far as saying it's just as safe as the main net...

Above text was simplified (by a lot), there are loads of other factors and technical gimmicks into play... But in a very simplified form, the basic idear behind above text is valid.

As for the second question: yes, both nodes need to be online to finalise a payment... A new transaction redistributing the locked funds has to be signed by both parties....

[fiulpro]

See this question is actually variable depending upon :
1. For what time you are going to store your coins there
2. How much amount are you transferring
3. Which specific wallet do you plan on using ?

This would be different for different people. If you do use a trusted wallet and don't use the same for holding your coins for a long time then I do believe then it's safe for a person to engage in the lighting network.

You have to be extra careful with cyber security and make sure you take into account the reviews of the wallet and everything.

It's amazing for shops and businesses which have just started using Bitcoins and therefore I do believe that you have to actually give us more information regarding how you want to use it and for what purpose ?

Use it ! It's good ! But don't store your coins there.

[felipemarts]

That is exactly what I think. If LN worked well, everyone would be using it. But Bitcoin is no longer very accessible due to all the security concerns. Now with LN it is much more difficult to use.

[mocacinno]

That is exactly what I think. If LN worked well, everyone would be using it. But Bitcoin is no longer very accessible due to all the security concerns. Now with LN it is much more difficult to use.

Well, I might be a bit biased and I probably skipped a lot of the learning curve due to being around from the times before the lightning network was discussed for the first time. I actually started running my first lightning node when c-lightning was only available for the testnet... But I personally find recent lightning wallets pretty easy to use... They're pretty user-friendly... We've come a long way since the first releases...
I'm not saying there is no learning curve, and yes, it's a learning curve on top of the already existing learning curve users have to go trough in order to use bitcoin... But all in all, it doesn't seem like such a big deal if you're already reading up on bitcoin's main principles.

Nobody is forcing new users to know all the technical details about the lightning network... They just have to know it's a second layer that's faster and cheaper than the first layer, but the price is that the security is a bit less, so they should use it for smaller payments.

It's not unusable... I have received a couple hundred lightning payments so far, and I haven't lost any funds... But yeah, in the beginning the learning curve was a bit steep, and there's some FUD going around aswell...

[felipemarts]

Why don't I see a lot of exchanges using an LN?

[mocacinno]

Why don't I see a lot of exchanges using an LN?

No idear...
Probably because it's not as safe as getting their deposit addresses funded by a confirmed transaction on the main network
...
Or because it's to new and they don't trust it (yet)
...
Or because it's new and they don't want to invest any time into editing their codebase to accept ln payments
...
Or because they don't want micro-transactions
...
Or because they expect to trade one-way only, and their customers will need to fund the channels with bigger chunks anyway, so they want to encourage them to just depost all their funds directly instead of opening a lightning channel
...
Or because it's a chicken-or-egg problem: ln isn't used that much because not enough service providers accept LN  payments <=> service providers don't accept ln payments because it's not used enough
...
Or, something else... A political agenda maybe???

For the record: some of these reasons are based on misconceptions, uwillingness to change or lazyness... Those are just reasons i can imagine being talked about behind closed doors @ some exchanges

[felipemarts]

Why don't I see a lot of exchanges using an LN?

No idear...
Probably because it's not as safe as getting their deposit addresses funded by a confirmed transaction on the main network
...
Or because it's to new and they don't trust it (yet)
...
Or because it's new and they don't want to invest any time into editing their codebase to accept ln payments
...
Or because they don't want micro-transactions
...
Or because they expect to trade one-way only, and their customers will need to fund the channels with bigger chunks anyway, so they want to encourage them to just depost all their funds directly instead of opening a lightning channel
...
Or because it's a chicken-or-egg problem: ln isn't used that much because not enough service providers accept LN  payments <=> service providers don't accept ln payments because it's not used enough
...
Or, something else... A political agenda maybe???

For the record: some of these reasons are based on misconceptions, uwillingness to change or lazyness... Those are just reasons i can imagine being talked about behind closed doors @ some exchanges

Thank you. I am looking to develop a project using LN here in Brazil. But I'm not sure if the technology is mature enough yet.

I will intensify my studies here. Thank you very much.

[mocacinno]

--snip--
Thank you. I am looking to develop a project using LN here in Brazil. But I'm not sure if the technology is mature enough yet.

I will intensify my studies here. Thank you very much.

Well, i can't comment on wether or not it is mature enough... That's completely up to you... It's mature in the sense that many respectable stores are starting to adopt LN payments... I've accepted a couple hundred myself... But the technology isn't as mature as the first tier (the main bitcoin protocol), nor is it as secure.

If you use the lightning network for micro-payments (<$100), your lightning node is patched regularly, monitored and has an uptime of >99% and your channels are funded with a maximum of a couple hundred bucks worth of btc... I'd defenately go for it... Sure, you're using technology that's newer, but you offer your customers fast and cheap payments, so what you might risk running newer technology that isn't quite as secure as the mature first tier, you might make up in extra business....

But that's just my own personal opinion

Good luck!

[Carlton Banks]

Thank you. I am looking to develop a project using LN here in Brazil. But I'm not sure if the technology is mature enough yet.

I broadly agree with moccacino about the risks of Lightning, and with your caution thereof. In addition to the inherent risks of Lightning's protocol, there are also the inevitable software-based teething problems (vulnerabilities have been found in the software clients, implementation of the spec is sometimes inconsistent across clients, the Lightning spec itself is unfinished, etc). Expect more.

So I suggest we dust off an old expression (which still applies to Bitcoin, albeit less so than ever before): "Don't put more BTC than you can afford to lose into Lightning channels"

In practice, I would suggest only keep as much as you might practically need immediately/soon in Lightning, quite like you would with a regular wallet in your jacket pocket. Or applied to a business, keep as much in Lighting as you would feel comfortable left in the cash register.

[felipemarts]

Looking forward to that day.