The end of Lightning Network?

[franky1]

I believe Lightning Network initially was designed for off-chain transactions with small or not too big value so how recently it becomes a big problem.

initially yea. but these days majority of the liquidity is linked to 3 large companies. and they will want to further protect their locked liquidity by disavowing its customers control of the agreements/commitment states.

this topics flaw is not even a major problem but when lightning devs admit they cant fix something within their own network and resign. it shows not only they need to want bitcoin to fork to fix THEIR error. but also that when the other flaws get publicised which also cant be fixed. more and more will start to realise its time to break their sponsored contract. and try something new

[1714667588]

1714667588

[1714667588]

1714667588

[1714667588]

1714667588

[1714667588]

1714667588

[alastantiger]

This puts some serious doubt on the future of lightning and the viability of it as a scaling solution.
What are your thoughts? Is there a path of recovery for developing scaling solutions?
And how about the years of waiting and supposed progress of development on the lightning network? Does it all go to waste?
For many, lightning network was the go to solution to bircoin's scaling issues.

My thoughts on this is that the lightning network is not dead. I think what has happened is just a FUD. If there were any real attack we would have noticed a depletion in the huge bug bounty reward of 5,288.66 BTC. If you check the https://mempool.space/lightning you would see it. Also, just as you would not leave the bulk of your bitcoin on any centralized exchange, also, treat your lightning network wallet in the same manner. The money there should be minimal just for quick spending and not kept as your savings. So that if eventually, so real attack happens, you will lose nothing substantial.

[JollyGood]

time for them to scrap it and start afresh, new model, new method. les flaws, less bugs

we should not be forking bitcoin just to make a subnetwork function.. a subnetwork should function prebridge.. and then program itself on its side to interact with bitcoin

if they cant even have a working prototype thats secure. they failed at the first post

I do not know if now is the right time to completely scrap and give up while looking for another solution. There has been a lot of time, effort and collaboration that was put in to creating what is being used now therefore an alternative might not be the nest thing to bring forth right now.

I believe Lightning Network initially was designed for off-chain transactions with small or not too big value so how recently it becomes a big problem.

initially yea. but these days majority of the liquidity is linked to 3 large companies. and they will want to further protect their locked liquidity by disavowing its customers control of the agreements/commitment states.

this topics flaw is not even a major problem but when lightning devs admit they cant fix something within their own network and resign. it shows not only they need to want bitcoin to fork to fix THEIR error. but also that when the other flaws get publicised which also cant be fixed. more and more will start to realise its time to break their sponsored contract. and try something new

I did not read anything about three large companies dominating but after a look around I found the pool of stakeholders with serious interests seems more than three. River seems to have just completed a $35 million fundraising round therefore it is getting some publicity:

[AmoreJaz]

I believe Lightning Network initially was designed for off-chain transactions with small or not too big value so how recently it becomes a big problem.

initially yea. but these days majority of the liquidity is linked to 3 large companies. and they will want to further protect their locked liquidity by disavowing its customers control of the agreements/commitment states.

this topics flaw is not even a major problem but when lightning devs admit they cant fix something within their own network and resign. it shows not only they need to want bitcoin to fork to fix THEIR error. but also that when the other flaws get publicised which also cant be fixed. more and more will start to realise its time to break their sponsored contract. and try something new

and so we thought LN is a very good alternative when it comes to cheaper payment method. and now with this news, i don't think people will think of this network to be viable in the payment system anymore. people are looking for ways on how to get cheaper transactions via btc and now this option is out already. but in any case, i believe up until now, only few are using LN for their transactions so yes, it is no big deal.

[franky1]

I believe Lightning Network initially was designed for off-chain transactions with small or not too big value so how recently it becomes a big problem.

initially yea. but these days majority of the liquidity is linked to 3 large companies. and they will want to further protect their locked liquidity by disavowing its customers control of the agreements/commitment states.

this topics flaw is not even a major problem but when lightning devs admit they cant fix something within their own network and resign. it shows not only they need to want bitcoin to fork to fix THEIR error. but also that when the other flaws get publicised which also cant be fixed. more and more will start to realise its time to break their sponsored contract. and try something new

and so we thought LN is a very good alternative when it comes to cheaper payment method. and now with this news, i don't think people will think of this network to be viable in the payment system anymore. people are looking for ways on how to get cheaper transactions via btc and now this option is out already. but in any case, i believe up until now, only few are using LN for their transactions so yes, it is no big deal.

heres the thing. (mentioning other issues)with liquidity bottlenecks and many users rebalancing causing other users to rebalance to cancel out their result of someones reblance ends up causing more payments and "router" fees. then we have a ignorance of fixes to this and instead have work arounds like custodianising funds in hubs (services and cex) then we have other work arounds to solve channel balance threats due to bugs with autopilot features so they start getting people to buy/rent LN balance units(msats) where central services run the node and users just have a lite wallet they dont need to have active all day and never sleep..
so now the promises of a decentralised own your own value network is 95% centralised with majority of users reliant on central services charging them 'rent' and subscription charges as the replacement of just a nominal fee.. all while the subnetwork itself is still less secure then the bitcoin network

its time they come up with something else. learn from the mistakes and start from scratch, stop prodding the problem down the road requiring bitcoin to change just to keep a flawed network open.. if a subnetwork cant fix itself using its own code.. its just not good enough

i do laugh when they 'greenlight' new services.. it just shows that if devs need to offer a service instead of a network code feature.. they have reached their coding limit of fixing the problems

[JollyGood]

The faster and cheaper method is something we all would like bu the number of lightening transactions are tiny in comparison to what was earlier called normies in this thread. There is still a chance it will grow but it is dependent on adoption. The more people that use it will mean the more prominence it will have. I have never used lightening before though I had on one occasion looked at using it and by what has been said it does not look as though I am missing out on something spectacular.

and so we thought LN is a very good alternative when it comes to cheaper payment method. and now with this news, i don't think people will think of this network to be viable in the payment system anymore. people are looking for ways on how to get cheaper transactions via btc and now this option is out already. but in any case, i believe up until now, only few are using LN for their transactions so yes, it is no big deal.

[alani123]

I made a post to specifically discuss potential mistakes and wrong decisions that were made in the aftermath of the 2015-2017 big block scaling debate:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471530.0;topicseen

If you think you have any input on the matter feel free to drop by there too.