Will the Lightning Network Solve ALL Scalability Issues?

[Carlton Banks]

Technology should never be too complicated on the "user" side... or adoption will be hampered. People want a wallet and they want to deposit and withdraw... that's it...     (Running Lightning Network hubs and all that nonsense is for techies... not for your average public out there) 

to an extent

if a child that can barely talk has the same level of tech skills as you, then it's not that the tech is too complicated, it's that you're lazy


the alternative is to permanently have Jeff Bezo's military-intelligence dick in your ear

[1714676963]

1714676963

[1714676963]

1714676963

[1714676963]

1714676963

[1714676963]

1714676963

[o_e_l_e_o]

We'll probably have to move into another smarter way like using 1 multi-sig address for a family; each member could have their own balance in their phone, but they'd all spend from the same channel.

Yes, this will be possible using a channel factory as I mentioned before. Eltoo will allow the creation of such multi-user channels built upon a single channel, and Schnorr signatures will remove the limit of seven users on such a channel.

Technology should never be too complicated on the "user" side... or adoption will be hampered.

Eltoo actually makes things simpler by replacing LN-Penalty. The end user doesn't need to understand the tech (how many actually understand how mining works or how transactions are created?), as long as their wallet can present it in an easy to use manner.

[Rath_]

We'll probably have to move into another smarter way like using 1 multi-sig address for a family; each member could have their own balance in their phone, but they'd all spend from the same channel.

It's actually feasible right now! You can install LND and LNDhub on a server and ask every family member to install BlueWallet. I have recently talked about it in this post. The whole family would be able to use all channels of the same node without having to worry about individual backups or liquidity. Of course, someone would have to manage that node.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I think one of the drawbacks of a add-on type of technology like this.. is the complexity. People are already struggling to understand the basic concept of Bitcoin and now they have to over complicate it, by adding more things to it. 

It's getting complex if you go through the technical stuff. In theory, I believe that I can explain to a five year old kid how Bitcoin works. Same thing happens when you'll have to explain the Lightning Network to an adult. On their usage, they're both very simple, but one may ask “Why should I use this?” or “How does this differ from a traditional payment processor?”. And people should ask themselves what is this thing's purpose. Anyway, IMO it's still early.

Most people just have better things to do. 

It seems that you don't...

[DooMAD]

Obviously other currencies have been aiming to tackle the scalability issues that Bitcoin is being presented with.

Obviously if the Lightning Network is not successfully implemented, the likes of coins like XRP will fill in the gap that banks need for fast cheap liquidity.

Will the lightning network be game over for the rest of the ALT coins that are borderline built on scalability?

Let me know what you guys think.

The way I tend to look at it is this:
It's relatively easy to make something for a single purpose.  It's far more difficult to make something that performs multiple functions and do them all equally well.

Any altcoin can claim it has solved scalability because, chances are, they'll never have to demonstrate that in practice.  The vest majority will never handle anything close to their maximum capacity.  And the reason for this is acceptance.  You can't (affordably) transfer value via a token that other people don't accept as payment.  So along with scalability, we have to add other elements, like network effects, speed and security.  This is the point where compromises start to come into play.  Again, it's easy to do one of those things well, but very problematic to do them all at once.

LN can't do everything, but it can do a fair number of those things to a reasonable extent.  

[stompix]

~

Even assuming all that, then at most you can open 9,000 channels per block, meaning it would take 17 years just to let everyone in the world open a single channel. As soon as you consider that obviously some people need to have multiple channels open for Lightning to work, and obviously people will want to close channels, open new ones, top up their channels, and so on, then that number increases exponentially.

Lightning is great, but it cannot support global adoption without further changes to the base layer.

Let's assume the improvements Carlton Banks mentioned, let's assume that not everybody in the world will use LN, more like, 100 million at maximum and probably half of that to be realistic and when we're considering this we arrived at the point when we might have to ask ourselves if LN won't be solving a problem that's no longer there and will come to hunt us more likely in a distant future!

4 years since the last spike in price and the activation of segwit and despite periods of high fees look where we are now, it's the middle of the week, blocks are coming in at 90% of the pace , 44 blocks behind in 3 days, and the mempool is empty, less than an hour ago a 700kb block was mined, even if we have been experienced 1-3 sat/vbyte days for almost a month now, with the difficulty finally not taking those damn swings usage is at the lowest. Of course, the usage might grow again if we're entering in a bull run but those that rush coins then won't be using LN, until the thought of making 10x with our coins in a year won't fade away I don't see the demand for transactions growing that much, especially with a lot of users opting for centralized solutions, debit cards, internal wallets off-chain transfers, and many more.

So, I guess we have quite a lot of time to seek improvements, and if those problems arise when a 12TB ssd costs 200$ and nobody produces drives with capacity counted in GB, I can see how this will be solved.  

[TangentC]

Most people just have better things to do. 

It seems that you don't...

You either. 

I suggest you explore https://www.algorand.com/  since you have nothing better to do. 

So you can see for yourself how lame bitcoin and LN are to a true 3rd generation blockchain design.

Real Time MainNet Metrics
Block Finality
4.39s

Transaction Volume
1,160 TPS

[Obito]

Not all scalability issue but it will solve some that are the most bothersome like the speed and network congestion that's plaguing bitcoin for a long time now, hopefully it will catch because LN has been here for awhile now and it seems to me that people is making it underrated.

[Chato1977]

Obviously other currencies have been aiming to tackle the scalability issues that Bitcoin is being presented with.

Obviously if the Lightning Network is not successfully implemented, the likes of coins like XRP will fill in the gap that banks need for fast cheap liquidity.

Will the lightning network be game over for the rest of the ALT coins that are borderline built on scalability?

Let me know what you guys think.

LN is designed for small trades/transactions that's why this is not widespread , but i know that there comes a time that this will be the answer for all that we need in terms of scalability and bitcoin usage.

[Carlton Banks]

LN is designed for small trades/transactions that's why this is not widespread

the devs have removed the maximum limits on channels and sends for most Lightning node software, so it's possible to send large amounts. All lightning software will remove send/channel size limits eventually.

Still, it's better if you're careful how much money you put on your node. It's a good opportunity to learn how to run a secure server, which can only be done slowly/carefully.

[franky1]

devs are in the process of making lightning 2.0 (layer 3)
its where you dont vault up funds into a channel. but instead deposit funds into a factory multisig
the factory then offchain creates channels below it in millisats.
so users cant broadcast, but can close session with the factory and so the factory aggregates the channel balances and recreates new channels to rebalance the channels.

thus even less onchain transactions as it wont require onchain broadcasts/settlement to close/reopen

[Timelord2067]

devs are in the process of making lightning 2.0 (layer 3)
its where you dont vault up funds into a channel. but instead deposit funds into a factory multisig
the factory then offchain creates channels below it in millisats.
so users cant broadcast, but can close session with the factory and so the factory aggregates the channel balances and recreates new channels to rebalance the channels.

thus even less onchain transactions as it wont require onchain broadcasts/settlement to close/reopen

All of which you are opposed to as it is not done on the block-chain where it can be verified.

[TangentC]

devs are in the process of making lightning 2.0 (layer 3)
its where you dont vault up funds into a channel. but instead deposit funds into a factory multisig
the factory then offchain creates channels below it in millisats.
so users cant broadcast, but can close session with the factory and so the factory aggregates the channel balances and recreates new channels to rebalance the channels.

thus even less onchain transactions as it wont require onchain broadcasts/settlement to close/reopen

Hmm,

You deposit/lock your Bitcoins with the Factory, and then the Factory creates the channels for you.

Has anyone told them the so called Factory is now a Bank.   

[electronicash]

devs are in the process of making lightning 2.0 (layer 3)
its where you dont vault up funds into a channel. but instead deposit funds into a factory multisig
the factory then offchain creates channels below it in millisats.
so users cant broadcast, but can close session with the factory and so the factory aggregates the channel balances and recreates new channels to rebalance the channels.

thus even less onchain transactions as it wont require onchain broadcasts/settlement to close/reopen

Hmm,

You deposit/lock your Bitcoins with the Factory, and then the Factory creates the channels for you.
Has anyone told them the so called Factory is now a Bank.    

it's centralized we know that. maybe they'd find solutions to it as well.

LN is being used that's very important though there are limitations to these channels we haven't heard of some issues yet that actually happened. but there are already speculations as to what's to come. the solution is also coming.  so let's just wait for what could the devs bring.

[o_e_l_e_o]

You deposit/lock your Bitcoins with the Factory, and then the Factory creates the channels for you.

Has anyone told them the so called Factory is now a Bank.   

It sounds like you don't understand what Channel Factories are. Your bitcoin are not locked anywhere - they are in a mutlisig address, which you can broadcast the settlement transaction for at any time and withdraw them from the factory, just like in a normal Lightning channel.

[TangentC]

You deposit/lock your Bitcoins with the Factory, and then the Factory creates the channels for you.

Has anyone told them the so called Factory is now a Bank.    

It sounds like you don't understand what Channel Factories are. Your bitcoin are not locked anywhere - they are in a mutlisig address, which you can broadcast the settlement transaction for at any time and withdraw them from the factory, just like in a normal Lightning channel.

IMO,
It seems more , like people are afraid to call a Bank a Bank.  

[DooMAD]

IMO,
It seems more , like people are afraid to call a Bank a Bank.  

You are welcome to your wrong opinions.  You've been trying to claim "LiGhTniNg = bAnKiNg 2.0" for years now.  It's not like you've had any great success with convincing people of that myth.  Maybe find a hobby you're actually good at?

[BlackHatCoiner]

It seems more , like people are afraid to call a Bank a Bank.  

It seems to me that you don't understand the difference between a bank and a lightning node. The bank can transfer your money whenever they want; they just attempt not to. The lightning node cannot move your bitcoins same like I cannot move your bitcoins from your address.

I guess that the “C” in your username stands for “Chatter”?

[kryptqnick]

I think that even if the LN solved the scalability issues, altcoins would still be popular for trading and as a form of a long-term investment. Moreover, the LN is not exclusively for Bitcoin, so altcoins can also benefit from it. But honestly, I don't think it'll become the mainstream solution that we need because it had years to do so and didn't. Plus, people who open the channels do pay significantly, right? And there are centralization issues due to which some are against it, and then there are many crypto users for whom it's just too difficult to start using the LN.

[TangentC]

It seems more , like people are afraid to call a Bank a Bank.  

It seems to me that you don't understand the difference between a bank and a lightning node. The bank can transfer your money whenever they want; they just attempt not to. The lightning node cannot move your bitcoins same like I cannot move your bitcoins from your address.

Old Reference
Deposit Gold in a Bank
Banks let you transfer value using their BankNotes/IOUs

Deposit Bitcoin in LN Factory
LN Factories let you transfer value using their channels (IE: LN notes/IOUs)  

*Look for the following to be added to LN Factories/Banks at a Future Date*
Custodial Fees, and seizures after certain lengths of inactivity

Actually the Bank does need the pretense of a legal reason to control your funds,
and you can sue them to retrieve any funds they put on hold.

Who will you sue, if the LN factory/Bank locks up and loses your funds?  Blockstream?

 

FYI:
If the LN Factory/Banks decreases the onchain transaction fees to miners,
it may induce miners to start taking bribes to earn more to cover their energy costs.

If the LN hubs bribe miners, a DoS attack may be performed on a transaction (by not mining it).
This transaction must be mined within a given number of blocks or else a portion of BTC that was locked in a channel may be forfeited to a LN hub.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-March/000500.html

forfeited /seizure