Article from Coindesk. Are Bitcoin Developers Losing Faith in Lightning?

[bbc.reporter]

It appears that the next storyline will be if Lightning Network has failed, what is the next roadmap for scaling bitcoin?

Coindesk is owned by the Digital Currency Group. This is founded by Barry Silbert. Barry Silbert was removed from his position in Grayscale. Barry might not be very busy anymore heheheh. The skeptical me thinks that Barry's next project might be something that he will declare to be bitcoin's best scaling solution.



Hailed for years as Bitcoin’s saving grace, the off-chain solution needed to finally make Satoshi Nakamoto’s “peer-to-peer digital cash” an actual functioning payments network, today appears to be losing faith.

Similarly, Joseph Poon, another co-author of the Lightning white paper, has seemingly become more interested in blockchain scaling solutions happening on other chains, like Ethereum’s Plasma. He is now working on a new type of decentralized exchange.

Other bitcoiners have raised concerns about Lightning’s many privacy issues and that the scaling solution often can be surprisingly expensive to use. In particular, they complain about the design of “inbound capacity” on Lightning, which limits the amount of BTC you can receive, so that users sometimes pay to receive funds (or, that payment is subsidized by startups).

The latest round of Bitcoin Lightning discourse appears to have been kicked off by longtime bitcoiner John Carvalho, who was once one of Lightning’s biggest champions until he tried building software solutions on top of it. His recent interview with Vlad Costea caught the ear after Carvalho derided the “complexity and fragility” of the protocol.

“Going through that experience has made me realize that the design is kind of a joke,” Carvalho said. “We can make it work. We can do our best, but all of the narratives that came with [Lightning] in the first couple years were really exaggerated.”

Indeed, it seems like there is a turning tide in sentiment around Bitcoin’s Lightning Network, which has been hyped as a potential replacement for Visa’s payment rails and the spur that will bring about “hyperbitcoinization.”

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2024/04/02/are-bitcoin-developers-losing-faith-in-lightning/

[Amphenomenon]

Base on my research to be frank i don`t really like LN though I have not tried it since there have not been any opportunity for me to test it, though I hate it when fee go extremely and more frustrating when I can`t my tx to ViaBTC free transaction accelerator last year but still opt to pay some reasonable amount of sat for my transactions that will accepted by miners in later hours.

Actually I don`t see LN as the actual way to solve Bitcoin Scaling issues in the long run especially from the cons in it but I think it will continue to grow as bitcoin adoption rate increase  and significantly when there is an extremely high tx fee because outside this majority of bitcoiners do not really see the reason to use it.

[hd49728]

It appears that the next storyline will be if Lightning Network has failed, what is the next roadmap for scaling bitcoin?

News about weakness, failure of Lightning Network began to appear months ago, even before the approvals of Bitcoin Spot ETF in USA. That fud is not enough to prevent the Bitcoin bull run months ago.

Now around halving time, after Bitcoin has several months of price growth, fud about Lightning Network returns as one of news used to dump Bitcoin.

Lightning Network is not perfect, like Bitcoin main net is not perfect, but we will move to future with more developments, side chains and more solutions. Bitcoin will go mainstream and this fud can not prevent it.

Coindesk talked about it 4 years ago
In 2023, Developer exposed potential security issue on the Lightning Network

[pooya87]

Similarly, Joseph Poon, another co-author of the Lightning white paper, has seemingly become more interested in blockchain scaling solutions happening on other chains, like Ethereum’s Plasma. He is now working on a new type of decentralized exchange.

This is what money does to people. We are all looking for it, some more than others and some would sacrifice anything they work for or believe in to acquire it.

A not so interesting side chain of a centralized shitcoin with a mutable blockchain is not worth wasting time on as a developer but it is a fantastic opportunity to make a lot of money from the centralized organization that owns that centralized shitcoin with a massive premine.

[un_rank]

Actually I don`t see LN as the actual way to solve Bitcoin Scaling issues in the long run especially from the cons in it but I think it will continue to grow as bitcoin adoption rate increase

Can you outline some of the cons you have discovered? No system is perfect, outlining the problems in it will lead to updates that improve the service it offers. LN is a work in progress.

...and significantly when there is an extremely high tx fee because outside this majority of bitcoiners do not really see the reason to use it.

It does not have much use outside this, that is what it was designed to solve and to also help with small coffee transactions.

- Jay -

[DooMAD]

Any reasonable person understands there will be challenges in building something this complex.  And it's pretty much impossible to make something that pleases everyone.  There are always going to be shortcomings and areas where compromises need to be made.  The crucial part is that we make the most of what's available.

It doesn't have to be perfect.  It only has to be "good enough".

The problem is that many people aren't reasonable.  They either have unrealistic expectations, or their sense of entitlement makes them believe people should listen to their poorly conceived notions of how they could supposedly do it "better" when they clearly have no grasp of the concept.  Let such people complain.  It's not like they could actually do any better.  Most of them won't even try.  So it's just empty noise.  Development continues regardless.

//EDIT:  OH LOOK, AN UNREASONABLE PERSON, RIGHT ON CUE

franky is a deranged and manipulative asshat.

[franky1]

Any reasonable person understands there will be challenges in building something this complex.  And it's pretty much impossible to make something that pleases everyone.  There are always going to be shortcomings and areas where compromises need to be made.  The crucial part is that we make the most of what's available.

It doesn't have to be perfect.  It only has to be "good enough".

The problem is that many people aren't reasonable.  They either have unrealistic expectations, or their sense of entitlement makes them believe people should listen to their poorly conceived notions of how they could supposedly do it "better" when they clearly have no grasp of the concept.  Let such people complain.

its not complex,, stop pretending
its actually simple.. but made TO LOOK complex TO FAKE the idea that complexity is security
(also made to be appear complex via bad GUI, annoying user interface, 24/7 required monitoring(bad security) to make people settle for service managed channels instead of self managed)

it should not be the only option (whats available)
we should not have to sacrifice other options and then be told the only option is 'good enough' when it is not good enough

doomad is the one that does not have a clear grasp of the concept. he doesnt know of(want to admit) the flaws, and so pretends for years that its the best, top, only solution people should rely on..

even when the LN devs themselves for years have been calling it out as flawed.. he still turns up defending it as the only option thats good enough.. thus still wants everyone to move over to it and abandon bitcoin..

all i see is that doomad was given a false promise years ago that if he can recruit people to use it. he can syphon those peoples funds off them via many tricks and flaws and features to make him rich. he is guided by false promises of one day becoming rich from recruiting idiots into using a flawed system.. and he wont back down and realise his game is no longer working

It's not like they could actually do any better.  Most of them won't even try.  So it's just empty noise.

actually many have tried.. but have had so much idiotic REKT campaigning even before code gets to be active.. that they just move over to other projects away from the tyranny central cult
when there is a sponsored agenda of a roadmap of one direction.. that moderates, bans and forces out any other path.. its no longer about offering options.. its about fighting a central point of failure that wants things to fail for profit, and they dont care about the community needs becasue they only see their own retirement plan

doomad treats core devs as immortal gods he should always idolise, trust and be loyal too.. yet core devs just wanna get rich and retire as fast as possible even if it means taking funds for adding exploits, headaches and annoyances to a system that is suppose to not emulate fiats exploits, headaches and annoyances

even if LN was a fully operational network without bugs..
(you gotta put alot of IF's to even envision it in a working state, but lets pretend it was)

its not suppose to emulate a Visa debit system, its suppose to and ends up as a visa CREDITCARD system

shuffling unsettled balance around is a IOU credit system aka DEBT system

...
renting/leasing liquidity. is where you ask for a credit agreement to borrow someone elses funds (a credit provider) and it even comes with debt interest. the longer you rent the more you pay even if you dont use the balance..
yep change the word 'rent' for 'credit card interest' and you start to realise the business plan for LN

[mk4]

Don't get me wrong — I hope Lightning does succeed, but if Lightning amounts to nothing in the end, do we actually have an alternative solution for scalability? It seems that Bitcoiners are betting all their cards on Lightning. Not a fan of halving the future of bitcoin payments in one company.

[franky1]

Don't get me wrong — I hope Lightning does succeed, but if Lightning amounts to nothing in the end, do we actually have an alternative solution for scalability? It seems that Bitcoiners are betting all their cards on Lightning. Not a fan of halving the future of bitcoin payments in one company.

thats the problem.. betting on lightning
there does not need to be this silly "one world currency" of credit facility of everyone moving to LN as the sole network for 8 billion people

and even if there was a use-case or world wide assumption/plan of a "one world currency" .. LN wouldnt be the network

devs have moved away and started from scratch of other subnetworks.
some completely avoiding cores moderation roadmap by making btc pegged credit on other mainnets, some are making different subnetworks that would run beneath bitcoin but starting from scratch, learning from LN faults to make something different

there will be/are multiple ways to scale bitcoin onchain.. and also other services/subnetworks for NICHE use cases

[DooMAD]

Not a fan of halving the future of bitcoin payments in one company.

Not just one company.  There are a few different competing implementations.  Coindesk are just less likely to promote the others based on where their bread is buttered.  It's unfortunate that money does have that kind of influence, but that's life, I guess.

[franky1]

Not a fan of halving the future of bitcoin payments in one company.

Not just one company.  There are a few different competing implementations.  Coindesk are just less likely to promote the others based on where their bread is buttered.  It's unfortunate that money does have that kind of influence, but that's life, I guess.

DCG was funding coindesk so coindesk DID promote LN more then reveal its flaws.
DCG did fund the main core devs and also its sister companies of chaincodelabs brinks and other groups that all act like a cult in regards to LN

yes money does influence people.. the problem is people cared more for the FIAT money payday of converting other network crap syphoned value. rather than making bitcoin better to gain via bitcoins progress

and by the way. all LN implementations have flaws because they are using a flawed system that had broken promises from the beginning that could not be fixed due to the design of the system as a whole
dont even bother pretending its a user error for using the wrong wallet

[348Judah]

It appears that the next storyline will be if Lightning Network has failed, what is the next roadmap for scaling bitcoin?

Bitcoin lightning will remain no matter the circumstances, it will not fail because its serving the purpose in which it was intended for, many would have seen no reason for its uses because its target was aimed at having a lower cost for making a bulky transaction with same required speed, anything about the ongoing development with the lightning network has nothing to do with bitcoin adoption or the lightning network use, it has always been the same experience with this lightning right from the start and the target may not be applicable on every bitcoiner, but if they see the needs to, they can adopt for its use.

[btc78]

The problem with bitcoin’s scalability has been observed years ago thus lightning network has been invented in hopes of reducing transaction fees. But years after, it just shows how ineffective the lightning network is. I hear that the developers are still trying to add features that could finally solve the long-year scalability problem of bitcoin.

Despite all this, bitcoin remains on top of the cryptocurrency scene which just adds to the said scalability issue. I do hope that they come up with something and quickly as well.

[shield132]

Lighting Network is a failure to my mind, I lost faith in it immediately when I understood how to use it. It's not a practical solution for Bitcoin scalability because it's hard to use for the average human and in a world where everything is getting easier and user experience is getting improved in every product and business, there is no place for Lighting Network. The best solution for everyone in terms of transactions would be a high block size but it has its negative sides as well as I have heard from many bitcointalk members.

[un_rank]

Don't get me wrong — I hope Lightning does succeed, but if Lightning amounts to nothing in the end, do we actually have an alternative solution for scalability? It seems that Bitcoiners are betting all their cards on Lightning. Not a fan of halving the future of bitcoin payments in one company.

"Necessity is the mother of invention"
Maybe as we get closer to full dependence on transaction fees to support miners more solutions will emerge to fill the much more obvious void then. Today, tons of users are not using LN network cause they can still get by without it, when (or if) fees go much higher at a constant basis, the need for more solutions will create them.

- Jay -

[ABCbits]

--snip--

The latest round of Bitcoin Lightning discourse appears to have been kicked off by longtime bitcoiner John Carvalho, who was once one of Lightning’s biggest champions until he tried building software solutions on top of it. His recent interview with Vlad Costea caught the ear after Carvalho derided the “complexity and fragility” of the protocol.

“Going through that experience has made me realize that the design is kind of a joke,” Carvalho said. “We can make it work. We can do our best, but all of the narratives that came with [Lightning] in the first couple years were really exaggerated.”

--snip--

IMO it just means he didn't do much research on LN's technical detail. Although i agree some narrative were really exaggerated. For example, few people used to claim as main/universal scaling solution when LN actually designed for micro-transaction and LN user still need to pay on-chain TX fee to open and close channel.

[DooMAD]

Lighting Network is a failure to my mind, I lost faith in it immediately when I understood how to use it. It's not a practical solution for Bitcoin scalability because it's hard to use for the average human

For you, perhaps.  But that doesn't dimish what it does for those who are using it successfully.  On top of that, the fact remains that on-chain users are benefitting passively from other people transacting via LN.  The more people who are using off-chain channels, the fewer transactions there are taking up capacity in the next block. 

[kryptqnick]

The Lightning Network didn't get mainstream among Bitcoin users, let alone make Bitcoin generally mainstream by solving the scalability issue. It also gained both fans and haters. So I guess it did fall short of some expectations, but it's also worth noting that this has been the case for years, and 2024 doesn't bring anything new to it. That being said, it seems that the Lightning Network adoption is still increasing, and went significantly up in 2023. So the article isn't doing it justice, and the LN still has a decent chance of becoming more significant.

[franky1]

Lighting Network is a failure to my mind, I lost faith in it immediately when I understood how to use it. It's not a practical solution for Bitcoin scalability because it's hard to use for the average human

For you, perhaps.  But that doesn't dimish what it does for those who are using it successfully.  On top of that, the fact remains that on-chain users are benefitting passively from other people transacting via LN.  The more people who are using off-chain channels, the fewer transactions there are taking up capacity in the next block. 

LIAR. the junk fills up the space ONCHAIN meaning less people use ONCHAIN so less people are benefiting from onchain use because they are recruited/pushed to abandon using bitcoin

people are using bitcoin networks payments less often. LN has not helped bitcoin at all.. in fact all the stupid strategies of junking up bitcoin and making it expensive has been to make people use bitcoin less in the hopes people will use LN..
yet the adoption rate of LN did not rise during bitcoin congestion, it actually fell..

try to do research based on statistics not snake oil sales pitches

[Woodie]

Without any technical jargon here  about LN, I think the devs have every reason to put this on halt because among the devs themselves there isn't unity and LN hasn't received the support/demand it was to receive which I think is among one of the main reasons devs could be losing faith in it.

Btw, on a forum like Bitcointalk were you expect to have users with the tech knowhow on LN and if we had to ask how many of us use it regularly... am pretty sure the numbers don't look good and on top of that service providers haven't implemented the tech yet, so really the devs decision is justified and worse off after 4 years this technology hasn't made its mark means it's lost its momentum or perhaps this was rushed and product wasn't perfected which makes it a work in progress , just my 2 cents.