Will the Lightning Network replace on-chain transactions sometime in the future?

[Abiky]

I'm aware that the Lightning Network's mainstream adoption is still low these days. But as on-chain fees increase towards new heights, people will look for other options. They'd either choose an altcoin, or the Lightning Network in order to avoid high fees and slow transaction confirmation times.

If adoption for the Lightning Network goes all the way to the moon, do you think there's a possibility it could replace on-chain transactions? Of course, that is excluding on-chain transactions to open/close a channel on the Lightning Network. I think that miners will be doomed if something like this happens.

What are thoughts?

[rhomelmabini]

That might be a huge possibility unless these on-chain transactions find solutions in their own problem especially that hectic confirmation time plus high transaction fees. I'd never say that Lightning Network isn't helping but miners really play a big role to the security and trustworthiness of the chain.

[Poker Player]

I think it's pretty clear that Bitcoin is going to prevail as a store of value (it is already doing so). For day-to-day payments I am not sure, Strike seems to me an interesting lightning project that looks likely to succeed, but you never know. If it is not lightning it will be some alt.

[BIN-BIN]

People will possibly  go for lightening network instead go into other altcoin due to high transaction fees and longer time on the on chain network.  The bitcoin lightening network if advanced and developed on will eradicate the problem currently faced in the blockchain network 

[pooya87]

They'd either choose an altcoin, or the Lightning Network in order to avoid high fees and slow transaction confirmation times.

I disagree. They'd either suck it up and pay higher fees or go back to fiat.
Neither one of those things you said are the alternative option for when bitcoin fees are high. LN requires 2 on-chain transactions to open and close the channel so the cost is already applied to those who use LN too.
Altcoins are just useless and they can't even be considered viable at all. I'm still disappointed that only one person could come up with a single decent altcoin!

If adoption for the Lightning Network goes all the way to the moon, do you think there's a possibility it could replace on-chain transactions? Of course, that is excluding on-chain transactions to open/close a channel on the Lightning Network. I think that miners will be doomed if something like this happens.

It can not. You can't live on second layer, you have to come back to "first" layer again and that needs on-chain transaction.
Miners don't care, they are already making 6.25BTC per block that is worth nearly $300k without the additional tx fees.

[UserU]

Without Lightning being mainstream, it somewhat "helped" other altcoins because fees are distributed elsewhere rather than relying on the Bitcoin blockchain itself.

[avikz]

There is a high possibility of widespread adoption of lightening network, unless the high fees and network slowness is resolved once and for all. But miners won't be dommed even if most of the transactions move to off-chain because transaction fees is quite small compared to their mining rewards.

I think big companies like Binance, CMC, Coinbase should start educating people about LN. There is literally no awareness around LN which is really needed at this point of time. I don't think LN will replace on-chain transaction for good but the adoption should definitely be increasing!

[crwth]

In the application and widespread acceptance, this would be the ideal situation to make sure that everybody can transact without worrying about their transactions not getting confirmed. Imagine more people using BTC with their daily transactions because it's swift. Wouldn't that be the better thing instead of waiting for a couple of hours of confirmation?

I think the miners would understand it for the better. Faster transactions mean more transactions could happen. They would even out, hopefully. They are not doomed ultimately.

[mk4]

It would replace low value transactions; probably ranging from $1-$200 bitcoin worth of transactions. I'm definitely not an expert with Lightning, but I assume moving those "smaller" value transactions to Lightning and other layer-2 solutions would lighten the load on the mempool by quite a bit.

As for altcoins, meh. I don't recommended it but they're free to do what they like. It's not like because altcoins like DOGE is fast, it doesn't mean that moving all your BTC to DOGE is a good idea (because it's definitely not).

[Upgrade00]

But as on-chain fees increase towards new heights, people will look for other options. They'd either choose an altcoin, or the Lightning Network in order to avoid high fees and slow transaction confirmation times.

I wouldn't say on-chain fees are increasing towards new heights, such spike in feerate ie experienced anytime there is unusual activity on the network, the current fees are not much different from the one experienced during the dip in March last year or the bull run of 2017. When the price becomes more stable, the fees being paid would reduce as well.I wouldn't switch to hold an altcoin simply cause of lower fees and lightening network can not effectively replace the base layer, so miners are not ''doomed"

Miners don't care, they are already making 6.25BTC per block that is worth nearly $300k without the additional tx fees.

It's quite far in the future, but would this be an issue decades from now when the block reward is little or zero?

[davis196]

If adoption for the Lightning Network goes all the way to the moon, do you think there's a possibility it could replace on-chain transactions? Of course, that is excluding on-chain transactions to open/close a channel on the Lightning Network. I think that miners will be doomed if something like this happens.

Off-chain transactions cannot replace on-chain transactions,the blockchain is the foundation of Bitcoin,all the off-chain solutions like the Lightning Network are just an addition to that foundation.
BTC miners cannot be doomed by LN mass adoption.LN is supposed to the help the blockchain,by taking all the small transactions,which are flooding the blockchain.LN can't be considered as competition to the blockchain.
However,mass LN adoption won't happen anytime soon,so we are just fantasizing about possible events and processes that might never occur.

[pooya87]

Miners don't care, they are already making 6.25BTC per block that is worth nearly $300k without the additional tx fees.

It's quite far in the future, but would this be an issue decades from now when the block reward is little or zero?

It happens about a hundred years from now and it is not possible to speculate what the situation is going to be like by then or even if bitcoin is still around! The technology changes very quickly, in 50 years we may see a much more efficient and better version of bitcoin introduced.

With that said, you should also know that as I mentioned in my other comment, the second layer still needs on-chain transactions which means people still pay fees on chain to open a channel and those fees cover the mining cost even when the block reward is small or zero.

[Carlton Banks]

Serious traders will be the first to use Lightning as part of their typical usage of Bitcoin. I'm sure these types are already trying to avoid the high fees during market frenzies, but being confident you can _reliably_ use Lightning to circumvent the mempool will push them towards consituting the main userbase of LN. There's signs of that happening already, Bitfinex reported significant use of their Lightning deposit feature (but apparently not Lightning withdrawals) in the recent run up to $50,000

Ironically, new (not serious) traders will probably do the same, but only once they actually understand that the option is available. It's fairly realistic to imagine this as a recommended workflow:

• New user sends fiat to exchange, buys BTC
• Withdraws to Lightning wallet

If the offline channel maintenance service of the Lightning wallet in question cannot keep the channel from closing, the user's gonna wonder why they tried. That's the initial challenge for these wallet providers, and it depends on the incentives and health of the Lightning network holding up, really. From my experience, it's something like 90-95% reliable right now, which is enough for these experienced traders, but perhaps not enough for newbies to not feel a little burned.

[acquafredda]

Serious traders will be the first to use Lightning as part of their typical usage of Bitcoin. I'm sure these types are already trying to avoid the high fees during market frenzies, but being confident you can _reliably_ use Lightning to circumvent the mempool will push them towards consituting the main userbase of LN. There's signs of that happening already, Bitfinex reported significant use of their Lightning deposit feature (but apparently not Lightning withdrawals) in the recent run up to $50,000

Ironically, new (not serious) traders will probably do the same, but only once they actually understand that the option is available. It's fairly realistic to imagine this as a recommended workflow:

• New user sends fiat to exchange, buys BTC
• Withdraws to Lightning wallet

If the offline channel maintenance service of the Lightning wallet in question cannot keep the channel from closing, the user's gonna wonder why they tried. That's the initial challenge for these wallet providers, and it depends on the incentives and health of the Lightning network holding up, really. From my experience, it's something like 90-95% reliable right now, which is enough for these experienced traders, but perhaps not enough for newbies to not feel a little burned.

Therefore history repeats: traders where the ones who helped bitcoin going mainstream and traders will be the ones who will launch some serious Lightning Network adoption. Fine by me.
Anyway, noobs could also jump onboard LN in some easy way as LN wallets are becoming more and more user-friendly (I think of Breez).

On a slightly different note, only to clarify the thread's headline, LN will not replace on-chain transactions as we will always need on-chain txs to fun/close channels. (in fact,  LN is an off-chain 2nd layer scalability solution).

[hatshepsut93]

You won't be able to reliably send large transactions via Lightning, it would be in many cases impossible to find a route with enough funds.

 If you're buying a house or a car, you don't really care about a double-digit fee and 30-60 minute confirmation time. As I see it, on-chain transactions will be used for high-value transfers, Lightning will be used for small consumer purchases. There will always be some balance between them, if on-chain transactions will be cheap, more people will use them, so the fees will go up.

The current fees are a glimpse of what will happen when there will be even more adoption, especially if BTC will be a reserve currency for everyone. So, I wouldn't worry about miners getting no fees.

[Jating]

I'm aware that the Lightning Network's mainstream adoption is still low these days. But as on-chain fees increase towards new heights, people will look for other options. They'd either choose an altcoin, or the Lightning Network in order to avoid high fees and slow transaction confirmation times.

There are lot of options though, altcoin is one, but Ethereum is even higher than bitcoin so I doubt that they will choose it. But they have to convert their bitcoin to other altcoin as well, for some this might be tedious.

If adoption for the Lightning Network goes all the way to the moon, do you think there's a possibility it could replace on-chain transactions? Of course, that is excluding on-chain transactions to open/close a channel on the Lightning Network. I think that miners will be doomed if something like this happens.

What are thoughts?

Nah, LN is design for small payments only, and most bitcoin transactions involved huge amount moving in and out of the blockchain. So it won't replace on-chain transactions in the near future. There are a lot who complain about the fees and yet bitcoin is still the top coins. So there will still be miners, until the last bitcoin is mine.

[20kevin20]

I disagree. They'd either suck it up and pay higher fees or go back to fiat.
Neither one of those things you said are the alternative option for when bitcoin fees are high.

I disagree. I cannot afford anymore to pay around $100 in fees for 4 on-chain transactions to get through within the next block. It gets exhausting and, unfortunately, it makes me contemplate moving on from making daily BTC txs to another altcoin that makes things more affordable. As much as I love Bitcoin, if this is what the network will look like when mainstream adoption happens, then it honestly really sucks.

Edit: I wanted to reply to your thread, but I just noticed that the only altcoin that has been mentioned is the one I wanted to mention myself. Monero

[jacafbiz]

One of the major tumbling block to Lightning Network adoption is that miners believe it is a way on their revenue which indeed it is true if we are being sincere but what I found very difficult to believe is the refusal of exchanges to adopt the technology, we know exchange makes  some percentage of their profit from withdrawal fees, if they can charge less than the ridiculous one the are charging and opt for LN it will be win-win for everyone. The area I am being critical of LN team is their slow offering of DEFI services, people want yield for their BTC and if they can start offering yield interms of lending and borrowing service which I believe the market is there to exploit it would be huge, instead of people going for all these Wrapped tokens

[tranthidung]

I'm aware that the Lightning Network's mainstream adoption is still low these days.

It has some good growth recent months.

• State of LN network (main net)
• Channels, Capacity, Nodes

But as on-chain fees increase towards new heights, people will look for other options. They'd either choose an altcoin, or the Lightning Network in order to avoid high fees and slow transaction confirmation times.

If adoption for the Lightning Network goes all the way to the moon, do you think there's a possibility it could replace on-chain transactions?
What are thoughts?

I don't think it will happen but it is true that Lightning Network adoption will be increased. It might be increased more and faster if its developments can be boosted up more.

Despite of all future scenarios for Lightning Network, it is not true to say it will replace on-chain transactions

• It is only be alternative
• Altcoins can not replace bitcoin even many people use altcoins for their transactions
• Lightning network can not replace Bitcoin on-chain transactions, now and in future
• No one choose LN or altcoin for transactions if they are moving big funds and serious about safety

[Abiky]

It can not. You can't live on second layer, you have to come back to "first" layer again and that needs on-chain transaction.
Miners don't care, they are already making 6.25BTC per block that is worth nearly $300k without the additional tx fees.

Imagine what'll happen once the block reward goes to zero. Miners will be earning solely from on-chain fees on the Bitcoin blockchain. If people used the Lightning Network more than the main Bitcoin blockchain, then miners won't have an additional incentive to keep Bitcoin secure against external attacks. Of course, there's the need to open/close a LN channel on-chain. But channels can remain open for a long time, meaning that miners won't be able to earn from fees periodically.

Maybe I'm wrong and Bitcoin will be able to work well with the LN in play. But I'm worried what will happen in the future once people massively adopt the second-layer scalability solution. As long as Bitcoin remains profitable for miners, it'll continue to be the most secure and decentralized blockchain in the world. Rest assured that once mining becomes unsustainable, miners will stop supporting Bitcoin altogether. Who knows what the future will bring as on-chain fees continue to be on the rise? Just my opinion