Isn't Lightning Network bad for Bitcoin?

[DooMAD]

there are many flaws in LN
first is people dont realise bitcoins never EVER leave the bitcoin network.

That's a feature, not a flaw.  By design.  As intended.  Which is why it's not an "altnet". 

people call it (...) "the layer ontop".

It is a layer on top.  And not necessarily the only one.  I can't recall a time where you've never managed to convince a single person otherwise.  Consider finding some more convincing arguments rather than repeatedly trotting out the same tired old lines.  "Layer" is a perfectly justifiable description of LN. 

do not confuse using LN as still considered as being "using bitcoin"

You just said BTC never leaves the Bitcoin network.  Try to get your story straight.  If you are using BTC to open a channel, then you are clearly using Bitcoin.  Once a channel is open, then within that channel you use those dreaded, terrifying, ungodly msats with all their scary decimal places.  Despair all ye who enter.  The sheer horror of it.   

Or, back in the real world, that distinction is only important to you and no one else really cares that much.

if anything has been learned recently about the luna stablecoin fiasco is to never trust side networks/altnets/layers as those other networks can easily de-peg or fractional reserve.

Seems a touch disingenuous to compare a decentralised Lightning Network with an entirely centralised Luna.  The risks are very different and you seem to have conveniently glossed over them in your "dystopian" fashion.  In a centralised system like Luna, there was clearly a business model designed to derive profit.  Lightning is a protocol with development from a number of independent development teams (which you should be pleased with, seeing as you'd like to see multiple dev teams working on the base protocol).  LN does not have a business model.  It is not designed to derive profit.  Further to this, anyone in charge of centralised tokens, particularly stablecoins, can alter their issuance of new tokens and radically change the total capitalisation at will.  Lightning does not have that issue.  It is a peer-to-peer(to-peer-to-peer-to-peer-etc) network and not centrally planned.  As such, it is highly unlikely that LN would be susceptible to the type of fiasco that befell Luna.  But anything to sound like a sensationalist madman, right?  Credibility be damned.  You know yours ran out years ago, so just keep spouting nonsense and hope some of it sticks, eh?

 

(subtle hints that LN is bigger and better and ontop, above bitcoin) suggesting bitcoin is broke/not fit. dead

You keep claiming that other people are suggesting that, but I only ever see such comments from people who are misinformed about Bitcoin.  Every time some slightly ignorant noob comes along saying that Bitcoin is slow or expensive, people rightly point out that there is a cost for the security offered by Bitcoin, which other blockchains are unable to match.  However, it's also not wrong to point out that people have the option to sacrifice some of that security and use LN if they choose to, because it is potentially faster and cheaper.  It's a valid choice.  You don't have to like it.  You don't have to use it.  But nothing you're saying bears any resemblance to reality when you claim "people on the forum are telling people to use LN because Bitcoin is broken".  That is either a total fabrication on your part, or you're paranoid-delusional to the point where you infer meaning that isn't there and you somehow believe you're telling the truth.  I honestly can't tell which it is at this stage.

You've done it in this very topic with your reply to tadamichi.  They never said the words that Bitcoin was broken, but you somehow managed to insinuate it anyway. 

Are you sure you've completely ruled out the chance that you might just be a total headcase?

[franky1]

there are many flaws in LN
first is people dont realise bitcoins never EVER leave the bitcoin network.

That's a feature, not a flaw.  By design.  As intended.  Which is why it's not an "altnet".  

so you admit that there are no bitcoin on LN.. ok one step forward.. or was that a foot trip forward,oops you slipped. but thanks for the admission you admit that bitcoins dont leave the bitcoin network.

LN is an altnet because its a different network. its own name indicates it.. hint: the N of LN
its an alternative.. it is not the bitcoin network.. it is not bitcoin!! it is a separate network

people call it (...) "the layer ontop".

It is a layer on top.  And not necessarily the only one.  I can't recall a time where you've never managed to convince a single person otherwise.  Consider finding some more convincing arguments rather than repeatedly trotting out the same tired old lines.  "Layer" is a perfectly justifiable description of LN.  

gotta laugh at this one: "ontop"

so LN is physical? like an object..?. like a slice of ham ontop a slice of bread.. can you see it in the real world.... nope. its all digital..

LN is actually a digital bridge between multiple blockchains. AKA between beside.

you want to define it as ontop. because thats the subliminal words of being top(best/above/better)

LN can function without bitcoin so it does not rely on bitcoin. people can still use their exact same software they have now, but with other altcoins.

its not a LAYER EG the skin of banana.. because LN is not a protective thing of bitcoin alone. if anything its a branch of a tree that links many fruits together. not the skin(layer)

its funny how they choose "ontop" and "layer" instead of the more widely accepted term "edge".. but yea, having an alternative network at the EDGE doesnt spark the same subliminal imagery as being "ontop"


as for your many posts in many topics pretending it is bitcoin.. well. standard logic, code and just knowing how LN works says the opposite

LN unit of measure when it makes invoices and payments is not even bitcoin unit measure. its msat. the payments are not bitcoin transaction formats but "sphinx onion packets" in a completely non-bitcoin format.

these msats dont even have any network security to ensure that 1000msat converts to 1sat when transitioning from the LN payment to a commitment.

when you make a 5 hop onion packet.. it might show
B gets 5005 C gets 5004 D gets 5003 E gets 5002 F gets 5001 G gets 5000

but there is no security to ensure that your payment which you peg at 5000msat=5sat ensures that CDEFG also converts their balance to be 5sats. they may end up having different commitments broadcast because their wallet has different pegs..
there is no network audit/consensus/ security that when A wants to send 5 sat to G but uses LN to do it. that the conversions are adhered to underneath the GUI by noob users that cant/dont review code of the wallet they were advertised.

be honest. every payment event. do you check the raw commitment and arrange the 'bucket'(LN word dont blame me) into a bitcoin transaction to then check that the numbers correlate.  
noobs dont. and im sure you dont regularly check incase an update or patch or trojan didnt edit the peg.

heres the last funny

(subtle hints that LN is bigger and better and ontop, above bitcoin) suggesting bitcoin is broke/not fit. dead

You keep claiming that other people are suggesting that, but I only ever see such comments from people who are misinformed about Bitcoin.

doomad. you literally were one of the people misinformed that called it ontop!!! you make it your mission to call out the flaws of bitcoin saying it cant scale and not fit for mainstream.. yes YOU. go read your post history(incase you have amnesia)

[dragospirvu75]

I didn't knew this question will start such a big debate. And I see the opinions are divided. Thanks to everyone!

[2stout]

I can't really see where technology and innovations that helps with Bitcoin scalability would necessarily be a bad/negative thing.  However, there could be unintended consequences.

[DooMAD]

I didn't knew this question will start such a big debate. And I see the opinions are divided. Thanks to everyone!

I wouldn't really describe it as a "debate".  Some people just have a lot of hot air to vent and exceedingly few valid points to make.  An insignificant minority are still holding grudges that they didn't get their way in 2017 and can't let go of the fact that their ideas weren't accepted.  Everyone else has moved on.  The matter is settled, despite all the noise to the contrary.  I wouldn't worry about it.

[dragospirvu75]

Okay, got it!   

[Retiicle]

Lightning Network has solved the problem of slow transactions in Bitcoin and has made the transactions fast.

[alterra57]

Hello everyone!
I was thinking about one thing, Satoshi once said:
"In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for [mining] nodes. I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume."

As far as I know, in Lightning Network transactions, miners are not paid. So, doesn't this thing affect Bitcoin Network? If miners don't get enough fees to have a decent profit, they will be likely to stop mining.

Can someone explain this situation?

Can you explain to me why you're sending phishing links to people?