Lightning Network Observer

[Wind_FURY]

just get a drip of yourself and understand that lightning has failed the test of time, its time to move on, ask for something better. ask your gods to do something. (no 'ask' isnt an acronym for ass kiss)
not just kiss their ass, flatter them with compliments while they do other things sponsored by banking institutions, rather than the decentralised bitcoin community they should be taking care of

I'm sorry to disappoint you, frankandbeans. Growth and adoption might be slow, but it definitely hasn't "failed the test of time". Lightning Network Capacity has actually been growing year on year since 2018.

https://bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity

It's still early days, and I personally prefer slow but organic growth than the fast growth we see in many shitcoin networks that crash and burn in one year.

[1714254798]

1714254798

[1714254798]

1714254798

[1714254798]

1714254798

[tw0.625]

when the group using the "validation node" debate to not scale onchain are the same group that want pruning by default thus centralise only a small group of nodes to have the blockchain... its that idiot group causing more centralisation by making political demands that even more people not only NOT store the blockchain.. but also NOT even use the mainnet daily to want to sync the blockchain, thus defeating their own stance about their pretend desire of importance of the blockchain when its obvious they prefer a network that does not even have a blockchain
in short the blockchain is important but they dont care, so much so they dont even realise their path is causing more centralisation under the guise of silly agendas they pretend to play, pretending their agenda helps the blockchain decentralisation. when actual fact is that it does not


when even core devs have for 6 years said 4mb is network safe compared to their previous stance of 1mb safe. that means they COULD HAVE continued a regime of LEAN legacy tx to allow 4x tx count growth.
however they didnt go that path.

instead the byte miscounting and premiumising of actual lean transactions to then make bloaty witness tx seem affordable. has been their path. all to offer a feature gatway path to offrmamping to other insecure networks that dont even have a blockchain. nor even need confirmed blockchain balance to open channels or offer inbound balance to their partners.

also if you even look at their groups favoured subnetwork(this topics main characters) who have released stats on their events. of under 300 events per month (PASSING THROUGH THEM, not triggered by them) this is far far far less then the 2000tx per 10minutes the main net offers

even funnier is these guys premiss to put sole influence, promise and hope into this single subnetwork knowing its flaws that have yet for 6 years to be fixed, are ignoring that other subnetworks have populated more, meaning even users are voting with their funds to abandon LN and use something else due to the politics and delays in any/all scaling opportunities.

but going back to first point for emphasis. just using the 4mb acceptable space that wont harm the network (as core agree) would actually have allowed 4x more lean legacy tx, without the miscounting of bytes, whereby pruning was not a feature thus all those downloading core would actually be FULL validation archival nodes(keeping the blockchain decentralised)

offramping users to other networks that dont need full nodes and suggesting those that want to be full nodes should prune by default. are the ones that will centralise the blockchain the most. especially when they want only one dev group managing the rules on what software collects the blockchain data.

subnetworks have a NICHE but are not the solution. especially not this flawed subnetwork called LN that needs a complete rebuild or be scrapped and a fresh attempt made using different economic model.. rather then waiting another half decade for empty promises and pretend successes, even when the stats do not convey what they pretend

shhhhhhhhhhhh is oke
just take your medicine
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


https://twitter.com/lipa_btc/status/1659482757146324994

[franky1]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, frankandbeans. Growth and adoption might be slow, but it definitely hasn't "failed the test of time". Lightning Network Capacity has actually been growing year on year since 2018.

funny observation that you link a chart that IGNORED this last current month.. because.. capacity dropped in the last month by alot (so that just debunks YOUR "year on year" growth, becasue if you include all months of the year, you will see a drop)

if you observe this very topic many long time recruits gave up.. and said so in this very topic too

but hey if you want to promote that LN is THE defacto solution for 19m btc to be used on.. but think 0.0046m btc over 6 years is good.. then i guess your happy to wait another 24782 years to get everyones bitcoins locked up and using LN

you do realise when bitcoin creates 4.6k new bitcoin in just a week and you want to think a weeks bitcoin creation is 'good' capacity for 6 years of a groups empty promises of being THE solution for all bitcoin users.. you know your the one pulling at straws..

and im not surprised that the idiot of the '2.625 religion' is joining the idiots of LN.. you both deserve to scam each other

[tw0.625]

funny observation that you link a chart that IGNORED this last current month.. because.. capacity dropped in the last month by alot (so that just debunks YOUR "year on year" growth, becasue if you include all months of the year, you will see a drop)

if you observe this very topic many long time recruits gave up.. and said so in this very topic too

but hey if you want to promote that LN is THE defacto solution for 19m btc to be used on.. but think 0.0046m btc over 6 years is good.. then i guess your happy to wait another 24782 years to get everyones bitcoins locked up and using LN

you do realise when bitcoin creates 4.6k new bitcoin in just a week and you want to think a weeks bitcoin creation is 'good' capacity for 6 years of a groups empty promises of being THE solution for all bitcoin users.. you know your the one pulling at straws..

and im not surprised that the idiot of the '2.625 religion' is joining the idiots of LN.. you both deserve to scam each other

You can still start learning. I advise starting with the basics. Layer models are the only way to scale networks like Internet or Bitcoin.

https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ddos/glossary/open-systems-interconnection-model-osi/

[nutildah]

Good news franknbeans

There's a proposal out for increasing liquidity in LN through pooling funds from multiple users:

CoinPool: efficient off-chain payment pools for Bitcoin

We propose CoinPool, a covenant-based payment pool construction, which takes the idea of sharing UTXO ownership to the next level. In CoinPool, Bitcoin users lock funds in many accounts within a single UTXO to instantly transact across the pool without much on-chain footprint; or use their accounts inside the pool for advanced protocols (e.g., payment channels), possibly even connected to other CoinPools or the LN. CoinPool users can withdraw their funds from the pool at any time.

Sounds pretty exciting, no? Perhaps Lightning doesn't need to be scrapped altogether after all. So we don't have to keep making arguments similar to how useless solar power is or how dumb electric cars are, like we are forever stuck in 2009.

[BlackHatCoiner]

my first 3 paragraphs were answering his question about gmaxwell.. read them it mentions gmaxwells triggers

Use links. Use quotes. Use something. I won't attempt to search for anything above, as I consider it trash talk. Your posts lack coherence in paragraphs and barely meet the definition of text. If you want to have an adult conversation, you'll have to minimize your girly crying, and provide substantial context.

Sounds pretty exciting, no?

It is pretty exciting, although we haven't seen it in practice yet and it sounds. There's also Ark which was proposed more recently, and it's even more exciting.

[franky1]

coin pooling AKA custodians
nothing new.. but there disapears the "independent control" promise. oh wait that promise never arrived

the idea of "factories", oops i mean "coin-pooling" is not a new idea. just a new buzzword for the same thing

gota love the empty promise of "instantly transact" and "withdraw at any time"
hmm yea.. WHEN all partners of channel are online to agree to co-sign multisig

next up
the whole liquidity game.. (for ROUTING)
'sorry folks we cant unlock any multisig value to you. because the value inputted by you, that you think belongs to you is currently outbound to another channel partner as their inbound balance. due to being used for routing.. sorryz'

as for blackhat.. meandering offtopic drama

funny part is you know the quotes. your mentor keeps telling you them.. he was the one along with your fellow clan friends that went crying to gmax telling him they were being harassed.

im surprised you even forgot your mentor notes, its usually the only thing you do tend to remember from this forum

but atleast you can admit you dont like searching for answers and just want people to tell you it.. thus you might need some more time to learn the skills of DYOR

[Wind_FURY]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, frankandbeans. Growth and adoption might be slow, but it definitely hasn't "failed the test of time". Lightning Network Capacity has actually been growing year on year since 2018.

funny observation that you link a chart that IGNORED this last current month.. because.. capacity dropped in the last month by alot (so that just debunks YOUR "year on year" growth, becasue if you include all months of the year, you will see a drop)

 

Newbies and my fellow plebs, do you see how frankandbeans plays 4D Chess? It would sort of look like he's right, but the reason why the current month hasn't been recorded in the chart yet is because the month wasn't over the day I posted the link. July's data will be included when the month ends. PLUS it might be true, Lightning Capacity might have gone down by some percentage, but how can that disprove the growth of Lightning year on year since 2018?

frankandbeans, I'll give you a hint = It doesn't.

[franky1]

no actually that site has always had a lag. ... its not even a end of month thing because the data stopped mid june (12th june time of posting) so where is 13th june to 12th july results, if we were to believe windfurys checkers game theory of monthly update that catches up

but again point was out of all stat sites he chose one with the lag that hid the drop off.. i wonder why again he still defends that chart as a source that doesnt show current events

funny how though he didnt want to admit that capacity has dropped in recent time. and ignored that previous years have seen a drop too, such as 2019-2020 .. which debunks his year-on-year theory of pretending LN has had constant growth

its wavering and he cant understand or observe why. even when i have said in recent years people have given up waiting for LN's empty promises.. and instead they have moved onto start fresh subnetwork bridges that offer something that LN doesnt

but lets wait another 20k years for LN to 'grow' to capacity of all bitcoiners having a "solution", coz that their promise


highlight:
LN is not a solution to allow all bitcoiners to "use bitcoin" independent of middlemen via LN
for these reasons:
1. route capacity bottlenecks limit payment success of certain amounts(more then a pizza)
2. route liquidity. many route get clogged with used liquidity if 'locked value'(capacity) was sufficient at some point of channels existence
3. route middlemen involvement multiplies fee's per hop needed.
4. points 1,2,3 combine as another flaw, that being more popular network gets the more bottlenecks occur
5. need of co-signers
6. the emphasis now on not having independent coin control. but putting value into a hub,factory coinjoiner. who custodianises it and gives out 'accounts' to customers with balance 'inbound'
7.many services that open channels and give inbound balance even without a confirmed/locked bitcoin balance to peg to
8-20: all other bugs flaws and issues relating to ways to cheat counterparts of a channel (not mentioning all methods.. the scammers already have an easy enough job steal value from LN)
21:the 'rebalance' effect unbalances others on a route used to perform the rebalance by unbalancing them.. causing increased fake activity events of just shuffling 're-balance' back and fourth with everyone trying to counter balance the instigators rebalance.. and repeat repeat repeat (tug of war with no end)

i still laugh windfury wants to pretend its a secure network when even LN devs have admitted to losing value on it and put up disclaimers


LN is not superior to blockchain security in any way. infact its old tech. there was a reason bitcoin was invented instead of just a hub-spoke peer system of value sharing that LN bases itself on

[cygan]

there is a new announcement on the lightning network developer list and that is historical routing data is being searched for analysis. anyone who would like to provide this data can read more about the project here:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2023-August/004034.html

[cygan]

stumbled across this very interesting article today, which connects ai with lightning and illustrates what can happen when both sides integrate together

From Personal Assistants to Global Traders: How Bitcoin's Lightning Network Can Empower AI to Redefine Transactions and Transform the Future!

https://bitnewsbot.com/opinion-bitcoins-lightning-network-can-power-up-ai-driven-shopping/

[cygan]

the PhoenixWallet which allows you to store your Bitcoin on the lightning network itself, has implemented "splicing" in beta and other great features!
✂️

i quote myself here, because as the devs of the Phoenix wallet have announced today, the beta phase with splicing could be successfully completed.
the update will be released in the next few weeks for all android users. ios will follow soon...


https://twitter.com/PhoenixWallet/status/1691798668255297605

[fillippone]

Yesterday Blockstream released their updated LN implementation:



There is such an amount of new features that they decided to split the description in three separate blog posts:

• User Experience: new features users have requested.
• Developer Experience: new features and enhancements for developers.
• Experimental Features: a look into Lightning’s future by enabling experimental options at runtime.

Second and third update should be published today and tomorrow. I will edit the post when they release them.

[cygan]

Yesterday Blockstream released their updated LN implementation:
✂️

i have already posted the update here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5158920.msg62741236#msg62741236


and something very important...!
when opening payment channels, there is a vulnerability in ln that can be exploited by a denial-of-service attack.
however, operators of their own lightning node who always update their software to the latest versions need not worry. the vulnerability is already fixed in the following newer versions of various lightning implementations:

• lnd 0.16.0
• cln 23.02
• eclair 0.9.0
• ldk 0.0.114

https://morehouse.github.io/lightning/fake-channel-dos/

[cygan]

with the (under the name Yvette++) lnbits 0.10.10 release, which has been published today, some bugs have been fixed and a bunch of quality/performance improvements have been made, like e.g.

• optional fiat conversion in wallets
• cln rest funding source added
• ...

in addition, there are 4 new contributors who now want to support the 'project' and drive it forward with their knowledge


https://github.com/lnbits/lnbits/releases/tag/0.10.10

[fillippone]

In the Italian board, the user @gbianchi, on his mumblings on the disgraceful ETH network, found a strange evidence:

 

The LN nodes are more than BTC nodes.

How is it possible?

• More than one LN node connect to a BTC node?
• A public LN node connects to a private BTC node?
• Data source is inaccurate?

[BlackHatCoiner]

The LN nodes are more than BTC nodes.

There aren't more LN nodes than BTC nodes. There are more LN nodes than reachable BTC nodes. That refers to Bitcoin nodes that are listening for incoming connections. But the default setting when setting up a Bitcoin full node is to only accept outgoing connections. Site bitnodes.io estimates there are over 45 thousand Bitcoin nodes in total: https://bitnodes.io/nodes/all/.

That being said, it's also possible that both that estimation and the total LN nodes estimation is inaccurate. It isn't easy to have accuracy on finding the total nodes of completely peer-to-peer networks.

[cygan]

yesterday the lnd 0.17 beta version was announced. the new release which again has 30 developers working on it, has among others the following features:

• simple taproot channels enabling a lower cost and more private ln
• faster neutrino syncs for mobile development
• more efficient watchtowers

the complete release notes can be found in the github link: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/docs/release-notes/release-notes-0.17.0.md and a detailed article can be found in the following link: https://lightning.engineering/posts/2023-10-03-lnd-0.17-launch/

[fillippone]

Lately node and channel count, and aggregated Bitcoin count has dipped, only to partially recover during the last sessions.
During the ordinal saga, I would have expected numbers go up during this period when base layer was congested.
Any idea about the reasons for this?

[cygan]

the lightning network is gaining ground. since 2021, its usage rate has increased by 1212%!!! in august, 6.6 million transactions were completed using it. equal two years earlier it was 'only' 503,000 transactions.
in an october 10th report, River Research analyst Sam Wouters highlighted that the increase in lightning network transactions, which use more than two nodes to facilitate transfers, occurred despite a 44% drop in the price of Bitcoin and significantly less interest in cryptocurrencies overall. you can read the whole report under the link below:


https://river.com/learn/files/river-lightning-report-2023.pdf