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.

[franky1]

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.

when you dig deep into the details
LN was sponsored and funded as a sandbox test network of CBDC, which started as projects of the hyperledger project..
(you can research how blockstream(core) devs were involved in HLP and suddenly idea's of LN came about)
when the HLP sponsorship dried up some gave up. others then  just tried to be mischievous and take sponsorships from other corporate sources to make bitcoin a headache to try to make LN populate in the hope of acting as middlemen fee syphoners on LN(routers/services/balance landlords(credit facilitators))
(the sponsors needed ROI but knew they couldnt charge people middlemen fee's of bitcoiners but could charge middlemen fees on LN)
then you start to see how LN transitioned and how bitcoin became more annoying just to promote LN

LN is not a work in progress. it was flawed from the start. those hoping LN will prosper is like asking a cliffs edge to regrow soil and turn into a beach front hillside instead of a land slide

..
for the niche small use-cases of subnetworks. people need to start from scratch and learn from the mistakes of LN
as for trying to promote that LN is the sole solution everyone needs to migrate over too because scaling bitcoin wont happen until everyone has abandoned bitcoin.. those people should get a job in the comedy circuit

[DooMAD]

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.

You know what numbers look worse, though?  The number of people coming up with an alternative that everyone can get behind.  People can talk about what they think devs should or shouldn't do 'til the end of time, but none of that actually has any impact on the situation.  Is anyone in this topic actually going to do anything that might make a difference?  Those numbers are going to be truly minuscule.

Talk is cheap.  And that's all anyone here seems to have.  Hollow, empty, meaningless noise.  No code, no breakthroughs, no plans.  None of us are achieving anything other than idle chit-chat here.  So I'm happy to sit back and watch and see what the devs actually do.  Because pretty much everyone on the sidelines, myself included, are doing absolutely nothing to move development forward. 

[franky1]

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.

You know what numbers look worse, though?  The number of people coming up with an alternative that everyone can get behind.  People can talk about what they think devs should or shouldn't do 'til the end of time, but none of that actually has any impact on the situation.  Is anyone in this topic actually going to do anything that might make a difference?  Those numbers are going to be truly minuscule.

how about stop REKTing attempts and calling them oppositions to bitcoin and telling them to F**k off to an altcoin to test their theory
then you wont see people actually making altcoins to avoid your cult group drama.
even vitalik left trying to develop bitcoin to then do ethereum because of the cultish control core leadership created
even duffield left trying to develop bitcoin to then do darkcoin(dash) because of the cultish control core leadership created

The birth of Darkcoin

I discovered Bitcoin in mid 2010 and was obsessed ever since. After a couple of years in 2012 I started really thinking about how to add anonymity to Bitcoin. I came up with maybe 10 ways of doing this, but I soon realized that Bitcoin would never add my code. The developers really want the core protocol to stay the same for the most part and everything else to be implemented on the top of it.

the reason there are so many altcoins since core jumped in is because people do want something different to core but find it less of a headache to deal with core by those thousands of devs making thousands of altcoins.. instead of testing out different idea's on a bitcoin testnet and finding the best features for bitcoin to adopt.. yep even bitcoins testnet is moderated to only facilitate core feature/roadmap code

and secondly. stop then crying that you dont see other reference fullnodes on bitcoin when its cult group like you that dont want to see alternative brands on bitcoin "coz it adds to core god-devs leaders workloads of reviewing other peoples work"

your cults core-centric mindset is the central point of failure!! in soo many ways

thirdly how about you and your group of core god-dev worshipers stop reporting people who want to discuss alternative idea's to cores roadmap, and stop reporting people who also want to highlight core exploits.. then things can actually get discussed and developed on the bitcoin network instead of the whole 'abandon bitcoin and use another network if you dont like cores plan' game you and your ilk prefer to play


and lastly
you now cry that on this forum you see discussion.. hmm.. well it is called a DISCUSSION forum.. literally talk is in the name of the url
this website is not github!!
(and i wont go into the details of githubs moderation policy managed by andrew chow who only wants core-positive discussion on the "bitcoin github" repository)

yes people and even core prefer to discuss idea's and see what is practical/popular first. thats how new projects begin
but you dont, yet again, even want the discussion beginnings to flow. the devs you idolise only want core-positive(ass-kissing) discussion
its become an echo chamber

you try to cut off any scaling discussion by saying that the only option is your silly subnetwork and then you chime in with silly narratives of peoples idea's wont work unless they make their projects huge blocks to cater to "visa/one world currency distopia because thats what mainstream requires" then cry a second time that peoples idea's shouldnt be visa numbers because a hard drive is to costly.. but then you want transactions (one tx) to cost more then a hard drive 'for the good of the network'

you and your cult tribe do absolutely everything to avoid even the discussions of any scaling at all to grow in popularity even when there are thousands of topics wanting scaling, you always chime in trying to quash them by promoting the only future is subnetworks, so yes many people end up making other networks

the proof that people dont get far with core in leadership is the fact people end up making other networks to avoid the core governance program you love and idolise

you dont like even discussion of scaling options, you dont like other brands being on bitcoin network, you dont like people that see failures in core. heck you dont even want people discussing/highlighting/revealing core failures
heck you dont even want people knowing core have control of the network as it harms their control if people start realising it and doing something about it

[bbc.reporter]

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.

There is a quote in the article from a bitcoin maximalist where he tells everyone about the reality of developing his project using Lightning technology. The quote is highlighted in yellow and he said his experience caused him to realize that the design of Lightning is a joke which implies that he had much difficulty on implementing it. This is not the fault of the user or the developers who want to adopt a technology. This is because the technology might not be something similar to the hype. I speculate that Barry Silbert might have noticed this and he might create a new project for scaling bitcoin.

[Fundamentals Of]

I've already read issues regarding the Lightning network months ago. Some are too pessimistic about it that they're outright dismissing it already as a solution to scaling. But some others are saying they're simply exaggerating or setting an ideal standard.

For somebody who's just on the sidelines, I don't feel like this is a big deal. This is merely part of the bigger process of development and innovation. The Lightning network is under development. While at it, there must also be other alternatives that are being developed. This is all part of a never ending progress.

[pooya87]

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.

This is why ever since 2017 I've been saying we will always need on-chain scaling alongside everything else we do. This is also why I was a fan of the 2x part of the SegWit2x thing regardless of the other crap that surrounded the proposal.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Reading this article; I would say have opened my eyes to the possible reasons why bitcoin lightening network hasn't really gained as much attention as I've always thought it deserved, I actually over the year, wondered why people, bitcoin investors and traders keep complaining about bitcoin high transaction fees, and how the network has become really slow, but yet, no one is adopting the much hyped lightening network which we all were made to believe that it is an effective solution to the high transaction cost on bitcoin network.

And one question that comes to my mind now is, if actually bitcoin lightening network is a failed project, or likely to be a failure because it's never going to get the much anticipated adoption we all are waiting for, then is exactly is the next thing to hope for concerning the scaling of the bitcoin network? Will the network remain as it is currently for eternity? This I would say will be very risky for the continued existence of bitcoin, and maintaining its top position.

If the lightening network fails, then we as a matter of urgency, need another scaling solution for bitcoin network, else, we might wake up one day and discover bitcoin is continually losing market dominance.

[pooya87]

Reading this article; I would say have opened my eyes to the possible reasons why bitcoin lightening network hasn't really gained as much attention as I've always thought it deserved, I actually over the year, wondered why people, bitcoin investors and traders keep complaining about bitcoin high transaction fees, and how the network has become really slow, but yet, no one is adopting the much hyped lightening network which we all were made to believe that it is an effective solution to the high transaction cost on bitcoin network.

Another way of looking at it is that people haven't adopted Lightning Network as much as some expected because fees were high and sending on-chain transactions were difficult and costly. After all LN is a second layer which means it requires the first layer to perform smoothly so that people can use it like by opening channels easily.

[Blitzboy]

Bitcoin is undeniably interesting. Its shaking up the entire system, offering potential others simply dont have. The skeptics were wrong - this is a force to be reckoned with. Decentralized, streamlined... it brings advantages traditional finance cant even dream of.

Obviously, we've got issues to work through. The price swings, the regulatory questions - nobody's saying this is perfect yet. Every huge technology starts this way. The fact that we're seeing major players adopt it, even countries looking at it seriously, well, that speaks volumes. Could Bitcoin be the everyday currency of tomorrow? The possibility's there, and that's what makes it worth watching.

[NotATether]

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.

Since you mentioned Bitcoin payments, I would love to see a world where normal people can run their own *lightweight* bitcoin payment monitors.

Then we wouldn't have to congregate around centralized entities such as Bitpay, Coingate, Coinbase Commerce and the like.

BTCPay Server takes care of this perfectly but I am referring to all the infrastructure you need to set up to make it work - a full node, a LN node, etc. I think there is only Neutrino and some Electrum private servers that are light enough for this currently.

[Wind_FURY]

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.

This is why ever since 2017 I've been saying we will always need on-chain scaling alongside everything else we do. This is also why I was a fan of the 2x part of the SegWit2x thing regardless of the other crap that surrounded the proposal.

I'm confused, because if indeed the community would support a hard fork into bigger blocks, then why does Bitcoin need to go through the Segwit soft fork? A hardfork would not only be an opportunity increase the transaction throughput, it would also be an opportunity to make Bitcoin's code cleaner/fix the transaction malleability issue, no?

That "other secret crap" that was behind 2X's proposal was to fork Bitcoin away from the Core Developers.

[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.

This is why ever since 2017 I've been saying we will always need on-chain scaling alongside everything else we do. This is also why I was a fan of the 2x part of the SegWit2x thing regardless of the other crap that surrounded the proposal.

I'm confused, because if indeed the community would support a hard fork into bigger blocks, then why does Bitcoin need to go through the Segwit soft fork? A hardfork would not only be an opportunity increase the transaction throughput, it would also be an opportunity to make Bitcoin's code cleaner/fix the transaction malleability issue, no?

That "other secret crap" that was behind 2X's proposal was to fork Bitcoin away from the Core Developers.

windfury you are soo wrong yet again
you cant even be bothered to read the NYA or the proposals or code, or anything to back up your mentors narrative you copy and recite like a drone zombie


the reality and fact is(which is backed up by the NYA own words and code and versionbits in the immutible blockchain, is that X2 was a FAKE/empty promise to eventually give the community (at some un-dated future vapour time) 2mb base block IF they first agree to the mandate flag of normal segwit first.  and yep after segwit happened the talk of the 2mb did not continue.. core+NYA got their way so 2mb blocks talk ended as soon as segwit activated

x2 was not a deviation away from core, it was made by core sponsors(nya) to bait and switch the community into complying with segwit via empty promises, basically core+nya came up with a faked second option to make it feel like a choice but all paths lead back to giving core and their sponsors what they wanted, try reading things for once. look at who funded and wrote the NYA of the segwit+2mb(x2)

try learning for once

[franky1]

Another way of looking at it is that people haven't adopted Lightning Network as much as some expected because fees were high and sending on-chain transactions were difficult and costly. After all LN is a second layer which means it requires the first layer to perform smoothly so that people can use it like by opening channels easily.

or we can look at it the realistic way
when fee's came down in 2024 after the 2022-23 bitcoin congestion(fee wars).. people actually closed lots of LN channels and removed their liquidity from LN.. now whats left of locked value for LN is majority held by institutions that want LN to succeed purely because they sponsored alot of bitcoin devs to create LN in the hopes the institutions can make ROI from being LN middlemen offering payment route services/ balance renting(loans/credit/iou).. so thats why the institutions didnt leave but the individuals did leave. because individuals didnt enjoy their LN experiences but were strangleheld locked in due to congestion(until the fee's to unlock/settle came down and made it affordable to leave LN)

the reason why millions of people are not jumping into LN and instead sticking with other options(cex, mainnet use or even trying to use other subnetworks of bitcoin or altcoins) is because LN is FLAWED. and this topic aswell as others are now having confidence to start admitting to the flaws publicly

[mk4]

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.

Yea I'd figure that are multiple implementations, but knowing that I've never heard of the other implementations as a person that's pretty active in the bitcoin/crypto world(non dev though), is proof that it's probably not being widely tested by non-devs compared to the main lightning implementation.

[DooMAD]

Yea I'd figure that are multiple implementations, but knowing that I've never heard of the other implementations as a person that's pretty active in the bitcoin/crypto world(non dev though), is proof that it's probably not being widely tested by non-devs compared to the main lightning implementation.

It's possible you may have heard of some of them and not realised.  One of them is blockchain.info and their 'Thunder' client (pretty sure everyone here has heard of blockchain.info).  Blockstream and their 'c-lightning' or 'core-lightning' client are fairly prominent.  Lightning Labs and 'LND' are also pretty widely known.  There's also a 'Zap' wallet which is based on LND.  ACINQ and their 'eclair' client would probably be slightly less recognised.  There's one from Spiral called 'LDK' (which I don't even think I've heard of until just now).  And even Electrum technically has their own implementation (again, I'd imagine most people here have heard of Electrum).  I think there are other ones too. 

The fact that all these competing products exist gives me more cause for confidence than it does skepticism.  Clearly these unrelated developers all recognise the same potential in Lightning and they're all doing what they can to leverage that potential. 

Detractors are free to have their discussions and make their comments, but I'm still of the opinion that words are far less significant than actions.  Some people are actively building, while others are merely talking.  And I'm pretty sure I know which set of those people are going to be more influential in the end.   

[Agbe]

If there is any solution to the bitcoin network transaction fee to be reduced, I am always support because the Lightening Network is too cumbersome to understand. They said LN is the best to use when the price of bitcoin transaction is high and LN is the solution but I have not seen any solution from LN. So if there is anything that they can do to remove this high transaction fee I will like it. And another thing is that it is the developers information we need and not the third parties information. People are not really using the bitcoin Lightening Network yet it is the Solution to it.

[we-btc]

Lightning is creating financial intermediaries at every level.  What is also very interesting is, like Lightning, every 3rd party application to date has add 3rd party intermediaries.

The concept is "a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash".  - Bitcoin white paper

The problem is that it doesn't fit the current business model of being a 3rd party in every transaction and we are struggling to understand what that means.

If we want Bitcoin to succeed in its vision we have to use it "purely peer-to-peer".

Lightning is anti-Bitcoin.

[we-btc]

If there is any solution to the bitcoin network transaction fee to be reduced, I am always support because the Lightening Network is too cumbersome to understand. They said LN is the best to use when the price of bitcoin transaction is high and LN is the solution but I have not seen any solution from LN. So if there is anything that they can do to remove this high transaction fee I will like it. And another thing is that it is the developers information we need and not the third parties information. People are not really using the bitcoin Lightening Network yet it is the Solution to it.

Lightning is introducing financial intermediaries into every Bitcoin transaction on the Lightning network. This is not the solution.

The solution is to use Bitcoin as it was intended.

[Agbe]

The solution is to use Bitcoin as it was intended.

The intended one for bitcoin creation was the buying and selling of goods and services in the digital world of cryptocurrency but that has been sideline and overplayed with investment and that is how I obverse it. I think if really the main purpose of creating bitcoin which was p2p of two customers of the shop as Alice and Bob did in the transaction. And I don't know if you have another intended solution apart from the p2p of buying and selling. You can still tell us your own.  So what is yours?

[we-btc]

The solution is to use Bitcoin as it was intended.

The intended one for bitcoin creation was the buying and selling of goods and services in the digital world of cryptocurrency but that has been sideline and overplayed with investment and that is how I obverse it. I think if really the main purpose of creating bitcoin which was p2p of two customers of the shop as Alice and Bob did in the transaction. And I don't know if you have another intended solution apart from the p2p of buying and selling. You can still tell us your own.  So what is yours?

Bitcoin can be made faster so that everyone can enjoy the benefits of truly peer-to-peer transactions.  In order for Bitcoin to be peer-to-peer each party should use their own node.  This will decentralize and strengthen the network. Then we need to remove Replace By Fee(RBF) so that transactions can not be replaced before they are confirmed by the miners. Finally if we use the 4MB allocated to the block size for transactions and eliminate the NFT's from the chain we will quadruple the speed and reduce the fees.

The road blocks can be removed if we stick to the Intended purpose of Bitcoin - "a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash".

[goldkingcoiner]

Good that we are having a discussion about this. The community needs to put more pressure on devs, otherwise we will get nowhere. LN has been going stale and devs it seems have been running out of fresh ideas.

But Bitcoin is safe. Lightning was never a requirement for Bitcoin and even if it fails, something else will take it's place.

[d5000]

I never believed that Lightning could be really the one and only scaling solution for Bitcoin. A Lightning payment has a completely different character than an on-chain payment - at both sides of each payment. Someone who uses Lightning mainly to "pay things" has to regularly top up the channel. And for those receiving LN there is not only the infrastructure, but also the monitoring requirement. Old channel updates are more dangerous for those who receive Bitcoin frequently (and of course, the intermediate nodes).

It may be controversial what I'll write now, but I think the way to go forward is in this case (and only this one!): follow Ethereum! Ethereum has experienced some progress with Layer-Two solutions, above all with the rollup technology, which made tumble transaction fees. See Bitcoinrollups for a way to implement that in BTC. But there are also some other interesting L2 concepts like Nomic*. I could also imagine a "BTC stablecoin" based on a collateral/lend-based technology similar to Dai, which could be used on all EVM-compatible altcoins. Chain-based L2s have a crucial advantage to LN: they can be used like Bitcoin or any other altcoin basically -- no 24/7 requirement, no major monitoring costs. The only disadvantage to on-chain is that the security is a bit lower.

I still think Lightning is a part of a larger scaling solution. Several times I compared it with a prepaid card. That's how Bitcoiners should think about it - as a specialized micro- to small-payments solution. Not as a layer which has to be run by every single Bitcoin user, but by those who use Bitcoin frequently to make online (or offline) purchases like buying books, VPS, and other relatively low-cost items. For small payments, the attacks described last year are not profitable, so they will most likely never occur.

*The main problem I see for most of these technologies is that they are often using centralized tokens for some PoS/PBFT consensus. But these solutions are mostly open source so they can be forked, and a PoW token could be created for consensus.

[thecodebear]

Ideally we get a range of scaling solutions for Bitcoin. LN is a great one if you earn and spend in equal amounts on LN. Like say in the future you get paid 0.01 BTC per month from your job on LN, and you spend roughly that amount per month - spending what you make. Like if today we were at the point where you can readily spend Bitcoin, I'd happily have a LN wallet for spending, replenishing it when it gets low with crypto trading profits from an exchange sent over LN from exchange to my LN wallet, that would work great and is totally within the use cases of LN. But its not useful for people who are mostly going to have one-way payments, either receiving of paying.

And honestly the average person would probably use some LN service where they say pay a few bucks a month or whatever to get liquidity and rebalancing handled for them and they don't have to worry about it. I know there is already an industry of LN liquidity providers, though I have no idea if the costs are affordable enough to make it a viable option for the average person. Sure that is "centralized", but most people aren't going to care about that, they are just going to want to spend their bitcoin and not worry about the technicals and tradeoffs of LN, especially considering LN would act more like a checking account, while you still just hold long term savings in cold addresses.


But there should absolutely be other scaling solutions with different tradeoffs. I think the only real problem with LN is that it was touted as the ONLY scaling solution needed and so the community for the past 5+ years has sorta ignored the problem because LN will be ready by the time people want to start spending bitcoin en masse. And it will be, but also let's see what other scaling solutions can be designed. LN might work really well for some people, but it also might not work well for others. It's a great solution but doesn't work great for every use case. We need multiple scaling solutions to allow Bitcoin to be globally scalable for every use case.

[franky1]

bitcoin scaling is about scaling bitcoin (any talk about needing people to leave bitcoin for other networks is not a scaling solution for bitcoin. its instead a abandon bitcoin and de-scale bitcoin solution)

subnetworks will become separate offerings of separate niche services, functions for different needs. but this is not to say the solution is to get people to stop using bitcoin and use other networks as "solutions" to bitcoin scaling

lightning is not a solution, its actually the excuse to not offer a bitcoin scaling solution. its the stall/stagnate/delay tactic

lightning wont even have a prosperous future because even LN devs admit it has flaws.
other subnetworks will start from scratch, learn from LN mistakes and offer other niche, utility, services for other features that are not part of bitcoins main function. but those subnetworks have yet to be built

bitcoin still needs to scale. emphasis BITCOIN

we have already learned from history that banking systems of bank notes did not scale the utility of gold assets. it actually done the opposite
we should learn from mistakes of the past. not repeat them

[pooya87]

I'm confused, because if indeed the community would support a hard fork into bigger blocks, then why does Bitcoin need to go through the Segwit soft fork? A hardfork would not only be an opportunity increase the transaction throughput, it would also be an opportunity to make Bitcoin's code cleaner/fix the transaction malleability issue, no?

That "other secret crap" that was behind 2X's proposal was to fork Bitcoin away from the Core Developers.

That's true, with a hard fork we can fix a lot of bugs weirdness in Bitcoin protocol that would actually increase the efficiency and capacity. The actual size cap increase would also increase the capacity. SegWit2x was flawed, some of which I knew back then a lot more of it I know now.

But my point is that we are always going to need on-chain scaling and can not rely on other solutions like second layer to fix all scaling concerns.

when fee's came down in 2024 after the 2022-23 bitcoin congestion(fee wars).. people actually closed lots of LN channels and removed their liquidity from LN..

Your speculation isn't backed by data.
The spam attack on Bitcoin under the codename Ordinals got severe mid 2023 (not 2022) and the peak was at the end of 2023 and start of 2024. (click for larger image)
This shows the mempool from January 2022 till today:

It is clear when the fee is the highest!

The following shows the number of LN channels in the same period (the green square shows the same section where the fee is peaking)

Source: https://bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-channels

From these two charts it is clear that when the Ordinals Attack got worse and caused the biggest fee spike at the end of 2023 and start of 2024, we had the biggest drop in number of LN channels.
Before the attack in 2022 when the fees are almost always low, the number of LN channels is also pretty much a plateau.

[God bless u]

If I'm not wrong people were talking about the same thing almost a year ago and what's new? Lightning Network can't solve Bitcoin scaling issues because if it could it would have been implemented. This is just a positive step towards solving the scaling issue but in my opinion it's now worth it.

Bitcoin has done pretty well and now again halving is near and people are discussing this type of shit so that they can prevent the growth of BTC but it won't be possible and it's just a waste of time. People know that by establishing side chains BTC will solve scaling issue it's not dependent on LN networks.

[franky1]

when fee's came down in 2024 after the 2022-23 bitcoin congestion(fee wars).. people actually closed lots of LN channels and removed their liquidity from LN..

Your speculation isn't backed by data.
The spam attack on Bitcoin under the codename Ordinals got severe mid 2023 (not 2022) and the peak was at the end of 2023 and start of 2024. (click for larger image)
This shows the mempool from January 2022 till today:

It is clear when the fee is the highest!

The following shows the number of LN channels in the same period (the green square shows the same section where the fee is peaking)

Source: https://bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-channels

From these two charts it is clear that when the Ordinals Attack got worse and caused the biggest fee spike at the end of 2023 and start of 2024, we had the biggest drop in number of LN channels.
Before the attack in 2022 when the fees are almost always low, the number of LN channels is also pretty much a plateau.

read the quote you quoted of me, then read what you responded
i never said severe

but anyways
let me guide you word for word

"when fee's came down in 2024"
you too admit and confirm the PEAK(your word severity) was december 16th 2023.. thus "when the fees came down in 2024"
aka come down from peak(severity)

people were not taking the opportunity to move TO LN instead they took the opportunity to LEAVE LN at a faster channel decline than 2022-2023
look at the numbers.. the 2022-2023 number of LN channels were in an area of 80k-73k
but then dipped at a quicker rate down to near ~55k in RECENT MONTHS

also if you check your own charts
you will see that the september 2023 dip in fees's seen a dip in channels again(73k-68k) people were taking the low fee opportunity of sept-oct to LEAVE LN
then the next surge of congestion and fee. which peaked .. december 2023

also
2021-2022 where you and i say "before the attack in 2022" (we both know people started at the start of 2022 noticing ordinals was more then a petty thing,  so you agree the starting point of congestion was mainly from 2022)

here is where you try to disagree but the chart agree's with my stance
the amount of channels "before the attack in 2022" the channels were not "pretty much a plateau" before the attack
you can see that 2021-2022 was LN channel growth from ~50k channels to ~80k channels
(look below the channel chart at the part where you can scroll the chart with the scrollbar
(|    2020    |     2021     |<|     2022     |     2023     | 2024 |>)
                    ~33k   ~80k   ~80k                     73k~65k 55k  
                                      [                        =                       ]

2021 seen a growth of 33k-~80k  before the attack .. so not a plateau before the attack
then as the attack began.. 2022-oct 2023 was 80k-73k (a nearish plateau of small change(slow decline))
YOU mentioned the world plateau so im correcting where you see the "platuea" era you want to suggest.. actually happened

the plateau(your theory of 'plateau', i did not even mention) BEGAN after the 2022 start of congestion not before the 2022 date
which also proves that when bitcoin got congested/annoying. people still did not want to move over to LN as "a solution" after the congestion began
the channels BEFORE the attack(2022) seen 2021 go from 33k-80k based on your image of the chart
so there was no plateau before the attack
the plateau started as the attack started and channel declines when people could take the opportunity after some surge and dip in fee's


when fee's took a fall people took opportunities to LEAVE LN not join
even during the longer congestion people were not joining LN to escape the congestion

[OgNasty]

If I'm not wrong people were talking about the same thing almost a year ago and what's new? Lightning Network can't solve Bitcoin scaling issues because if it could it would have been implemented. This is just a positive step towards solving the scaling issue but in my opinion it's now worth it.

Bitcoin has done pretty well and now again halving is near and people are discussing this type of shit so that they can prevent the growth of BTC but it won't be possible and it's just a waste of time. People know that by establishing side chains BTC will solve scaling issue it's not dependent on LN networks.

Ordinals drove the point home that Lightning Network is not going to solve anything and will create new problems for users.  Not to mention the whole thing basically requires you to use a 3rd party which made it dead on arrival as an idea. 

It is nice to hear someone mention side chains (merged mined chains) as a solution.  I think people overlook that satoshi literally gave us an answer to the scaling problem as well as the internet censorship issue with merged mining and Namecoin.  If this was built upon to include merged mining chains for lower cost and faster solutions, NFT storage, data storage, smart contracts, etc. we would have seen Bitcoin mining explode in profitability while developers continued working with Bitcoin and not against it.  Unfortunately, Blockstream had a "scaling solution" they wanted to push and that made it so instead of everything being merged mined and working with Bitcoin, altcoins exploded and took away vital resources and talent from Bitcoin while causing a lot of drama and mistrust that still echoes in the community today.

[franky1]

Unfortunately, Blockstream had a "scaling solution" they wanted to push and that made it so instead of everything being merged mined and working with Bitcoin, altcoins exploded and took away vital resources and talent from Bitcoin while causing a lot of drama and mistrust that still echoes in the community today.

true but for clarity
core devs that 'founded' blockstream (who then invented sister companies like chaincodelabs/brink to appear less centralised(pfft)
were coerced by money funding/sponsors to perceive and develop sandbox tests for CBDC via hyperledger involvement

its funny how CBDC is modelled after a central reserve chain just for the central/commercial bank transfers(reserves network).. with smart contract channel/federations subnetwork for the customers of the commercial banks(not a coincidence)

if they didnt mandate a bitcoin change before november 2017 they would have lost a funding target/goal. and not get paid.. so forced it in august 2017 to be set by november 2017 so that it would unlock their next tranche of income to continue getting paid to work
if they didnt suck up and say how certain features were the future they wouldnt get ongoing R&D funding from sponsors
if they didnt pretend these subnetwork sandboxes were perfect they wouldnt get ongoing funding..

(you can tell they rushed to push segwit. because core node didnt even have the feature of "sign message" in the node GUI for segwit.. and didnt finish it after activation as all they cared about was activating if for their payday target)

they however are now seeing funding dry up now central/commercial banks are doing their own beta tests of CBDC and not needing core devs so now you start to see all the previously sponsored devs and businesses involved of promoting the sandbox tests, start announcing publicly the flaws and admit the faults are bigger then they previously wanted to admit

[Wind_FURY]

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.

This is why ever since 2017 I've been saying we will always need on-chain scaling alongside everything else we do. This is also why I was a fan of the 2x part of the SegWit2x thing regardless of the other crap that surrounded the proposal.

I'm confused, because if indeed the community would support a hard fork into bigger blocks, then why does Bitcoin need to go through the Segwit soft fork? A hardfork would not only be an opportunity increase the transaction throughput, it would also be an opportunity to make Bitcoin's code cleaner/fix the transaction malleability issue, no?

That "other secret crap" that was behind 2X's proposal was to fork Bitcoin away from the Core Developers.

windfury you are soo wrong yet again
you cant even be bothered to read the NYA or the proposals or code, or anything to back up your mentors narrative you copy and recite like a drone zombie


the reality and fact is(which is backed up by the NYA own words and code and versionbits in the immutible blockchain, is that X2 was a FAKE/empty promise to eventually give the community (at some un-dated future vapour time) 2mb base block IF they first agree to the mandate flag of normal segwit first.  and yep after segwit happened the talk of the 2mb did not continue.. core+NYA got their way so 2mb blocks talk ended as soon as segwit activated

x2 was not a deviation away from core, it was made by core sponsors(nya) to bait and switch the community into complying with segwit via empty promises, basically core+nya came up with a faked second option to make it feel like a choice but all paths lead back to giving core and their sponsors what they wanted, try reading things for once. look at who funded and wrote the NYA of the segwit+2mb(x2)

try learning for once

frankandbeans says anyone debating him is "wrong" and he wants you to learn, BUT the "correct information" that he has posted is a conspiracy theory made inside his own mind that even big blocker Deadalnix himself would find very VERY foolish and laughable.

 

This gaslighting-4D Chess of yours will not work frankandbeans.

Newbies, it was the UASF that activated Segwit, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0

Study Bitcoin history. Study BIP-148.

[pooya87]

"when fee's came down in 2024"
you too admit and confirm the PEAK(your word severity) was december 16th 2023.. thus "when the fees came down in 2024"
aka come down from peak(severity)

Fees coming down, in my book, is when fee enters 1 digit rate. So they haven't actually come down, it is just not as terrible as it once were. Otherwise the average fee since February is 20-ish sat/vb.
And the decline in the number of channels intensified as we set the ATH in fee rate then continued as they remained high.

Ordinals drove the point home that Lightning Network is not going to solve anything and will create new problems for users.  Not to mention the whole thing basically requires you to use a 3rd party which made it dead on arrival as an idea. 

You can run a LN node just like you can run a Bitcoin node and connect to the network to send/receive transactions. There is no need for a third party.

[franky1]

You can run a LN node just like you can run a Bitcoin node and connect to the network to send/receive transactions. There is no need for a third party.

the whole LN network runs on third party.. its the entire business model of LN (using other parties to hot potato/pass the parcel of borrowed value)
learn payment hops
learn routing
learn channel partners

even if you lock your value into a bitcoin utxo on the bitcoin network and then reference it to set up a channel on the lightning network with someone else(channel partner). you only adjust your unsettled contract of IOU with/to go to your channel partner and then using onion agreements ask them to then use their balance of unsettled iou contract with their other partner, and so on and so on until the destination.

LN does not set the destination in the contract and then relay the contract(TX) around the network to settle... LN is nothing like how bitcoin pays a destination

come on its LN 101, basic stuff

[franky1]

Newbies, it was the UASF that activated Segwit, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0

Study Bitcoin history. Study BIP-148.

wrong again.. you are stuck in doomad nonsense scripts of 2018

here i showed you and him(many times and many topics) a nice colourful image of the versionbit and user agents of the era..(you can verify it with blockdata and other stats)

blueline reaching its threshold, triggered the redline to then go from natural wiggles of 45% to unnatural /^-\ 100%

as you can see UASF didnt even get 20% popularity!!

now go do your research
even doomad occasionally realises he gets debunked and then comes to his senses and realises it was not UASF

the closest thing to an abbreviated term would be a ENAHF(economic node assisted hard fork)
however most commonly referred to it as the NYA agreement

due to how the NYA made old blocks get rejected so only new versionbit segwit flagging blocks got seen (the unnatural/^-\ rise to unnatural 100%)
NYA done its job by fake promising a later 2mb base, as long as everyon fell into line against their mandated blackmail of rejecting old blocks if people didnt fall into line... and as soon as segwit activated by the NYC scheme. the talk of a later 2mb base ended and the promise got broken


go read the code, go learn the NYA agreement and go verify the blockdata.

if you realy want to beleive one of your mentors clearer days of sounding as close to the truth as possible where he shows a bit of bravery to admit he was wrong and shown he could do some research

Your definitions aren't accurate.

BIP148 and BIP149 are virtually identical except that BIP149 activates 6-12 months later in order to reduce turbulence. Distinguishing BIP148 as a "UASF" and BIP149 as "timed" is misleading: they're both UASFs, and both timed with the possibility of early activation in case of miner cooperation.

There are many very different "Segwit2x" proposals, but BIP91 is absolutely not one of them. It doesn't involve any max block size increase except for SegWit. BIP91 is a way of activating the original BIP141/BIP9 deployment at an 80% mining threshold rather than the original 95% threshold.

There is no single "Segwit2x" proposal that you can clearly point to.

OP tweaked again to rectify.  I think the latest plan to activate SegWit2x is to utilise the signalling bits from BIP91, which is where I got mixed up.

(...)SegWit2x readiness would be signaled using another piece of activation data: “bit 4” instead of “bit 1.”

This makes SegWit2x largely incompatible with BIP141, and especially with BIP148: Different nodes would be looking at different activation bits, meaning they could activate SegWit under different circumstances and at different times; and that would mess up SegWit-specific block relay policy between nodes, potentially fracturing the network.
BIP91

Now, it seems BIP91 has provided the solution.

BIP91 is a proposal by Bitmain Warranty (not to be confused with Bitmain) engineer James Hilliard which was specifically designed to prevent a coin-split by making SegWit2x and BIP148 compatible.

The proposal resembles BIP148 to some extent. Upon activation of BIP91, all BIP91 nodes will reject any blocks that do not signal support for SegWit through bit 1. As such, if a majority of miners (by hash power) run BIP91, the longest valid Bitcoin chain will consist of SegWit-signaling blocks only, and all regular BIP141 SegWit nodes will activate the protocol upgrade.

Where BIP91 differs from BIP148 is that it doesn’t have a set activation date, but is instead triggered by hash power. BIP91 nodes will reject any non-SegWit signalling blocks if, and only if, 80 percent of blocks first indicate within two days that’s what they’ll do.

This indication is done with bit 4. As such, the Silbert Accord can technically be upheld — 80 percent hash power activation with bit 4 — while at the same time activating the existing SegWit proposal. And if this is done before August 1st, it’s also compatible with BIP148, since BIP148 nodes would reject non-bit 1 blocks just the same.

This proposal gives miners a little over six weeks to avoid a coin-split, under their own agreed-upon terms. With a SegWit2x launch date planned for July 21st, that should not be a problem… assuming that the miners actually follow through.

So obviously miners are jumping on board with this.


//EDIT:  -ck sums it up more succinctly in this thread.

//DOUBLE EDIT:  Look at the last 1000 blocks.  This looks like a pretty momentous shift.

[Wind_FURY]

Newbies, it was the UASF that activated Segwit, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0

Study Bitcoin history. Study BIP-148.

wrong again.. you are stuck in doomad nonsense scripts of 2018

here i showed you and him(many times and many topics) a nice colourful image of the versionbit and user agents of the era..(you can verify it with blockdata and other stats)

blueline reaching its threshold, triggered the redline to then go from natural wiggles of 45% to unnatural /^-\ 100%

as you can see UASF didnt even get 20% popularity!!

Of course you would show that image to everyone in the forum without context and without the source.

This is the source, it's from Reddit /r/btc, the home of the big blockers, https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8golyn/what_caused_the_miners_to_activate_segwit_threat/

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And for the context, that image illustrates that actual point that Jihan Wu and the miners cabal are working together with the signatories of the New York Agreement. In fact, they were also signatories of the agreement. The formation of the NYA also proved that desperation among them was starting because the UASF was not going to concede. It was actually starting to win some of the Core Developer's support, like Eric Lombrozo.

Newbies, study history, https://learn.saylor.org/mod/book/view.php?id=30784

[slaman29]

Man I don't think Liightning has failed at all. Sure if you look at L2 you got tons of Ethereum and altcoin networks doing billions in volume BUT that's mainly defi and memecoin games etc that's not really real utility, anybody including devs can admit that internally.

At least Lightning volume is all actual transactions actual utility.

We all know that's what's important in the end for Bitcoin.

[DooMAD]

Newbies, it was the UASF that activated Segwit, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0

Study Bitcoin history. Study BIP-148.

wrong again.. you are stuck in doomad nonsense scripts of 2018

I'm of the view that BIP91 is what broke the deadlock, so it I guess I don't agree with either of you.  UASF was a dumpster fire from start to fizzled out.  Looks like franky1 is so paranoid about conspiracies and cultists, he's too blind to recognise when individuals have different opinions (purely because no one shares franky1's moronic and delusional opinions). 

[d5000]

Adding a thought about the "subnetwork" controversy.

Yes, I agree actually with franky1 that "subnetworks" are not exactly the same than the Bitcoin network. Transactions that are shared only by a subset of the nodes do not have the same security than on-chain Bitcoin transaction, be it LN or sidechains.

But we have to distinguish between Bitcoin as a currency and Bitcoin as a core technology (i.e. limiting this technology to "on-chain Bitcoin transactions" or "Layer 1").

The Bitcoin currency can circulate on all kinds of different technological platforms and solutions. Just like fiat can do that too: We can have physical cash (coins/banknotes), credit cards, bank accounts, prepaid solutions and maybe other exotic means of payment an storage. All of these have different characteristics, some have risks associated that others don't have. Same with Bitcoin: if you chose to only use a subnetwork, then you have some tradeoffs, but you are using the same currency.

But we would never say that a US dollar payment is not an USD payment because it was made with a credit card.

I would even argue that Lightning shares more with the "core Bitcoin technology" than what a credit card-based technology (censorable, depending on a centralized payment provider) shares with fiat coins and banknotes (difficult to censor, private). Lightning is also uncensorable, for example - while you could censor a route inside the network, you can't prevent the censored user to simply close the channel. So all what can be done by a malicious third party is to lock another party out of a particular channel, but not to block the funds (like banks can do). Centralized wallets are much more similar to the "credit card"/"bank-based" model than LN, even if the users can use them to transact on-chain.

Also, while Lightning depends on third parties in some way, it gives total liberty to choose your third party. With credit cards, you have only three major international providers, and even if you count each bank separately, there aren't that many options. On LN you have thousands of nodes you can open a channel with, and many of them are not even for-profit entities. And if you aren't satisfied with the existing providers you can set up one on your own.

[franky1]

Adding a thought about the "subnetwork" controversy.

Yes, I agree actually with franky1 that "subnetworks" are not exactly the same than the Bitcoin network. Transactions that are shared only by a subset of the nodes do not have the same security than on-chain Bitcoin transaction, be it LN or sidechains.

But we have to distinguish between Bitcoin as a currency and Bitcoin as a core technology (i.e. limiting this technology to "on-chain Bitcoin transactions" or "Layer 1").

bitcoin BTC never leaves the bitcoin network.. fact
we for years been trying to educate people about things like #not-your-key-not-your-coin

when LN is now admitting its flaws technically and economically (where people are now using custodians as work arounds).. realise that was the game plan all along.. its how the sponsors of devs get their ROI. by becoming middlemen scraping LN fee's/rents(loans) from users. as they know they cant play middleman on the bitcoin network. so want to make bitcoin a hazard, hindrance and headache to use, to push people into the LN promotion games

LN msat is a pegged unit of subunits of sats. they are pegged/unsettled credit iou balance of a decimal of a sat
much like how wrapped and pegged units of other subnetworks are not the actual asset..
rBTC wBTC L-BTC are not actual btc

LN payments are not bitcoin/sat payments.. the format is in msat of a onionized payment/invoice.. bitcoin does not understand msats

analogy:
having credit on a credit card does not mean you have bank account savings.. you have debt.
a dollar amount in a debit card is not the same as a dollar amount on a credit card.. and looking at the lack of fiat education shows why people see a big national debt of 34trilltion dollars and how the fiat economy has so many problems.. lack of education

we should not repeat the same silly fool games of playing idiot and pretending that credit/debt is the same as asset ownership
the whole point of bitcoin was to be something different to the uneducated fiat system of admiring credit/debt as something to aim for while selling off assets to accumilate debt (get a credit score to get a mortgage, instead of save up and buy a house in full)

people foolishly (due to bad education at school/lack of education at school, dont know about how money/assets work)
people who have a mortgage think they have ownership rights of a house.. wrong. the bank makes the decisions. if you dont pay the bank they evict you. you are only a few payments away from being evicted if you dont pay the bank. they wont let you stay, its not your home you cant just choose
you have the ilusion of being called a home owner as they dont want the liability of maintaining the home, but funny part is they usually have terms that they want you (they set the demands) on the upgrades you need to do to give equity to the home, they tell you they want you to insure it to protect them
fiat has many economic bait and switch schemes pretending credit cards are better then debit cards, when you learn how fiat economy is messed up you start to see the errors of other systems that play the same games


learn the differences of how things work. learn economics, and learn all the schemes played against people.. and this learning process will enlighten your mind about other things.. it will help you know the difference between bitcoin and LN both technically and economically

you need to learn alot about economics and how the real world works outside of the silly idiot games people play to try to syphon value from you when you fall into their traps.. and LN is the same trap as credit cards

LN fails many times as a technology, but also economically.
its not the same asset model as bitcoin.. its a debt/unsettled(unconfirmed) IOU model like credit card.

analogy
dont be fooled when visa credit cards say they "work ontop bank wire-transfer networks" credit cards are beneath assets and real savings/investments. we should not hold debt to a higher standard or hierarchy or present debt as something people should prefer or think is better then debit cards/actual savings/investments

[Wind_FURY]

Newbies, it was the UASF that activated Segwit, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0

Study Bitcoin history. Study BIP-148.

wrong again.. you are stuck in doomad nonsense scripts of 2018

I'm of the view that BIP91 is what broke the deadlock, so it I guess I don't agree with either of you.  UASF was a dumpster fire from start to fizzled out.  Looks like franky1 is so paranoid about conspiracies and cultists, he's too blind to recognise when individuals have different opinions (purely because no one shares franky1's moronic and delusional opinions).  

Although it was the minority, obviously it wasn't merely a "dumpster fire". It was starting to make the community see that SegWit will activate with or without the miners support, and it was also starting to gain open support from some of the developers. I believe deep inside, the majority of the Core Developers supported the UASF from a community perspective, but they'll never admit it openly.

Without the UASF, I'm very confident that Jihan Wu and Roger Ver would never have made the move to hard fork to an altcoin. - Barry Silbert would never have made the move to call the leading Bitcoin companies and miners to form the NYA.

[d5000]

@franky1: No, I don't agree with the "LN is debt" analogy. You can always close the channel, and a channel closing does not depend on trust. You only lose the advantage to be able to transact instantly and for low fees, but only until you open a new channel.

You may lose some msats because that's the only part not "backed" on the blockchain all the time, but I don't see msats as a crucial part of LN. LN can work without any problem without msats. In fact, I question severely that the LN projects introduced msats as they probably will be never needed. Of course you can use a smaller unit for the fee rate but IMO this should be rounded up to whole satoshis when calculating the real fee. On the other hand, losing less than 1 sat when closing a channel will also probably never be an issue, you'll probably always pay thousands or more times this amount in transaction fees.

[traincarswreck]

@franky1 is a conman as well.

sick of ur guys's lies. 

[franky1]

@franky1: No, I don't agree with the "LN is debt" analogy. You can always close the channel, and a channel closing does not depend on trust. You only lose the advantage to be able to transact instantly and for low fees, but only until you open a new channel.

"buy now, pay later"
think about it

when using LN as a credit facility. you agree to pay someone at a later date(closing) which is a IOU
credit/iou is debt

yes you can always close the channel and pay off your debt sooner.. and yes if you are not renting balance then its like 0% interest creditline

A:10 -> 0:B:10-> 0:C

A wants to buy something for 5 from C, so enters a credit agreement (smart contract)
A:05 -> 05:B:05-> 05:C

when they close, the debt is settled. but until then A has a 'buy now pay later' where it uses B as a credit line for C. so
A owes B 5
B owes C 5

you can pay off B sooner or later but until close there is IOU waiting
(oh and many ways to default, bankrupt, evade paying(via flaws and bugs). and also many ways the payment can be forced via the other side sooner then you intend(via flaws and bugs),

and ways to scheme/switch the funds to replace you as payee to B for another person as payee to B via a route rebalance so that you then owe someone else in another routepath via re-balance) which in the world of credit/debt is called refinancing or balance transfer

here is the thing about currency, regulations of currency, etc..
when B acts like a route.. they are acting as a MSB (money service business) because they are facilitating a payment for another party for a fee. this fee is considered as commission or in terms of credit/debt. the interest/commission

a couple years ago the idiot group pretended that new regulations were a threat to bitcoin devs, miners and bitcoin node users being considered MSB(the lie) the real threat was to the subnetwork scene of routers being considered MSB

i sincerely hope you realise that when acting as a router. you then become a target of regulations of needing to become a MSB, and regulators know this and are currently drafting mechanisms to enforce it(which is why LN devs try to get people to darknet their nodes(and made false promises of privacy, which is broke))
and yes at later dates people will realise having their own locked value as credit collateral,  and enabling their channel to be a route = regulation requirements thus end up just renting balance from a MSB to evade regulations. (but that move is yet to flourish, but keep them in mind for now)

[Wind_FURY]

@franky1: No, I don't agree with the "LN is debt" analogy. You can always close the channel, and a channel closing does not depend on trust. You only lose the advantage to be able to transact instantly and for low fees, but only until you open a new channel.

"buy now, pay later"
think about it

when using LN as a credit facility. you agree to pay someone at a later date(closing) which is a IOU
credit/iou is debt

But that's not how it works. The Lightning Network is more like an organized mempool than a centralized entity storing those Bitcoins and issuing the users something else within the network. There are no IOUs in Lightning, they are actual Bitcoin transactions that haven't settled in the blockchain yet. A closer comparison for payments in LN might be acceptance of zero-confirmation transactions, not acceptance of payments in IOUs.

[NotATether]

"buy now, pay later"
think about it

when using LN as a credit facility. you agree to pay someone at a later date(closing) which is a IOU
credit/iou is debt

...

Well strictly from the context of the HLTC (or other kind of locking) script, this assumption makes sense, but you gotta remember that there is a penalty for broadcasting an old, previous state of the channel transactions on-chain.

So in the analogy of "debt" (which in the case of LN really only makes sense if it is debt with a collateral), it would be something like you defaulting on the loan but then your whole security deposit is confiscated - which in the case of LN happens to be whatever amount you put on the channel.

But you know what, this doesn't make sense either. Probably because there is no concept of "paying the lender back" on LN because there is no lender and no borrower, it is two parties pooling money together.

[franky1]

"buy now, pay later"
think about it

when using LN as a credit facility. you agree to pay someone at a later date(closing) which is a IOU
credit/iou is debt

...

Well strictly from the context of the HLTC (or other kind of locking) script, this assumption makes sense, but you gotta remember that there is a penalty for broadcasting an old, previous state of the channel transactions on-chain.

So in the analogy of "debt" (which in the case of LN really only makes sense if it is debt with a collateral), it would be something like you defaulting on the loan but then your whole security deposit is confiscated - which in the case of LN happens to be whatever amount you put on the channel.

But you know what, this doesn't make sense either. Probably because there is no concept of "paying the lender back" on LN because there is no lender and no borrower, it is two parties pooling money together.

the "penalty" is not as strict as you think. its not a guarantee.. enjoy looking into it..

LN is not the bitcoin network. LN is the IOU network
you lock up the collateral on the bitcoin network and pay later when you close the LN channel
inside the LN channel you are using pegged value of unsettled IOU balance
enjoy learning that
you dont pay and settle inside LN.. you buy now pay later inside LN and pay when you close LN to settle
enjoy learning that

when you learn how channel creations are flimsy and penalties are not reinforced/guaranteed. and how bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network.. you will learn that inside LN things are not as you beleive them to be

[d5000]

For me, the process of "locking up" the funds when you create a channel is already part of the "payment" process. Because the way LN is set up, with the money you lock, the channel partner is directly entitled to force you to pay your debt whenever they want, not when you want to settle.

So I agree with NotATether: considering these funds "debt" makes only sense if you analyse each HTLC separately. It's mainly a "technicality" to call it "debt". The "debt" however has characteristics which no kind of other "debt" in the financial system has. We could say it's a kind of debt where the debitor deposits 100% collateral in the same currency, and there's always security that you will pay your "debt", because the creditor himself (your channel partner) can enforce a channel closing at any time.

Bugs don't count, they are not part of the concept. We should not mix criticism of the concept itself with the discussion about bugs.

[franky1]

For me, the process of "locking up" the funds when you create a channel is already part of the "payment" process. Because the way LN is set up, with the money you lock, the channel partner is directly entitled to force you to pay your debt whenever they want, not when you want to settle.

then they choose to settle.. much like a bank can decide to call in the debt
you choosing to settle and pay up the debt or the other party decides to call in the debt. are both are still part of 'buy now pay later' known schemes

the fund locking and unlocking is not part of LN its part of broadcasting NOT TO LN but to bitcoin
when you know the difference between the functions and data thats processed in LN vs whats processed on the bitcoin network then you learn the differences of whats LN and whats Bitcoin

[d5000]

then they choose to settle.. much like a bank can decide to call in the debt
you choosing to settle and pay up the debt or the other party decides to call in the debt. are both are still part of 'buy now pay later' known schemes

It's not even remotely comparable to that. Because even if you go back and forth inside the channels as much as you like with payments, there is never a way to extract funds which are not deposited in the system, so the process of "calling in" the "debt" is always 100% automatic. The debitor has to do exactly none for it to work. And it works always, because the funds are always there, and they are in the same currency.

The only thing you can try is post an old state, which would be basically "renegotiating illegaly" to whom the funds belong which were already deposited into the system. There is no good analogy in the fiat system for that. Even if you take something like a shared bank account where two parties deposit money and eventually decide to settle (everybody taking the money they deposited), and one party tries to defraud the other one taking more, it's not the same thing, because the bank account has no inherent system to assignate the funds to the person they belong to, while LN does have that.

So if you still want to call that "debt", then do as you please, but it has none of the characteristics that make "debt" problematic in the fiat system. The owner of the funds is always controlling them, as long as they monitor the channels for a partner posting old states.

Your understanding is too "micro", it should be more "systematic".

[franky1]

then they choose to settle.. much like a bank can decide to call in the debt
you choosing to settle and pay up the debt or the other party decides to call in the debt. are both are still part of 'buy now pay later' known schemes

It's not even remotely comparable to that. Because even if you go back and forth inside the channels as much as you like with payments, there is never a way to extract funds which are not deposited in the system, so the process of "calling in" the "debt" is always 100% automatic. The debitor has to do exactly none for it to work. And it works always, because the funds are always there, and they are in the same currency.

bitcoin is not deposited into LN.. bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network
as for the LN balance that goes back and forth and renegotiated.. they certainly can double spend the UTXO reference across multiple channels. there is no network wide audit in LN(as for who eventually gets to win that actual amount at settling.. only one will and it may not be your rented channel/temp channel)
and secondly assuming the honour of only using one UTXO reference as collateral for one channel.. that becomes.. wait for it "credit limit" thus even in honourable facilitation of liquidity.. the reference is just a reference of credit limit

as for extracting value. there are many ways to cheat the punishments and evade the processes.. this is why LN didnt function via just punishments but now needs things like "watch towers" and other third parties to act as escrow and other means t prevent cheating

heck there are services that do the opposite of honourable credit
look at all the services that have channels that are years old but use that reference to rent temporary channels of inbound balance
the renter is not forming some funding lock to have 50% signing control of the value as that value was locked years ago

they are just shown some meaningless amount/balance from a reference they are not part of. and that can be taken away from them easily as they are not part of the signing process.. the actual UTXO owner can just sign his own tx on his own and broadcast it with a higher fee than the "state" the renter was supposedly given


..
here is the thing
try to put all the fluffy dream utopian promotional words you ever heard about LN into a box. and tape the box up and put it aside
then do this
imagine someone has invited you to put your hard earned value into a system.. and instead of blindly reading fluffy utopia. you decide you want to scrutinise it. and test it for bugs, and battle test it for weaknesses..

now just try to not think of LN as the happy dream they promoted to you. and instead think of it as a financial system that should be scrutinised before risking value in..
have fun finding the flaws instead of finding ways to ignore the flaws.. remember its your value risk you are putting up when you play ignorant or avoid wanting to see things outside of the PR game
dont fear scrutinising something when its your money on the line.. the devs wont refund you

[DooMAD]

franky1 is Craig Wright's 'Mini-Me'.



They both attack Bitcoin and its layer 2 technologies with the same flawed arguments and lies, claiming their vision for how Bitcoin "should be" is somehow better.  Problem is, neither of them actually understand Bitcoin or Lightning.  Their grasp of the concept is fundamentally wrong, so all the conclusions they draw are equally wrong.

Both are disgusting authoritarians.  Both are ego-maniacal sociopaths.  Both are borderline insane.

[franky1]

i dont attack bitcoin i attack cores centralised roadmap.. theres a diference

doomads angry that people are not joining him in his other network(LN) which he wants to think of as bitcoin
he wants recruits believing him an copying what he says

he didnt like me comparing his games to CSW so now wants to take my comment about him forming an altnetwork cult .. and so without any brains  he then threw the insult back.. yep he cant even come up with an original insult

doomad is the one that wants people to move to another network(LN) he thinks is bitcoin
he also thinks adam back is satoshi.... sounds soo familiar

he adores core control and governance(which is authoritarian)..
he cant even come up with an original insult but just use the ones that hurt him and thinks by throwing them back it hurts the other person..
such comedy

as far as my opinion
i want bitcoin(btc) to scale, with multiple dev teams, multiple node brands with equal power but no absolute central power, all offering proposals where the best proposals moves forward by devs listening to the community needs to provide the best solutions that everyone can then agree on using real consensus(consent of the masses) and applying those features to all brands to move forward(no single solo controlling brand)

he has no clue what authoritarian/tyranny is else he would realise he wants authoritarianism/tyranny(core solo reference client control)

he cant even take 10 seconds to realise the insults i say first to him, apply to him and not the other way round. he just says them back anyway because is isnt that smart to form original idea's, doesnt do research or think about what he says.

[Wind_FURY]

For me, the process of "locking up" the funds when you create a channel is already part of the "payment" process. Because the way LN is set up, with the money you lock, the channel partner is directly entitled to force you to pay your debt whenever they want, not when you want to settle.

Don't let the 4D-Chess-playing-troll gaslight you into questioning your understanding of the Lightning Network. The transactions in Lightning are actual Bitcoin transactions that were confirmed and locked in those channels, and are merely waiting to be settled on-chain if the user wants to withdraw them those transactions from those channels. The troll is merely having his 4D-Chess playing session again. Read his trust-rating, and who would you trust? Greg Maxwell and A. Chow? Or the troll?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[DaveF]

Considering how many larger crypto players are using LN it's amazing how many people still keep up with the it's dead and not being used story.

I can mine at https://braiins.com/pool get paid with LN.
BitPay who for years was still one of the biggest promoters of BCH now supports LN.
Even smaller LN providers are ROUTING 1000tx a day now: https://lqwdtech.com/node-stats/
And so on.

If you want to run your own node there are 1 click installs that work well.
If you want to have it run by someone else there are many custodial services that work well to that are very inexpensive.
If you want to run it your self by hand then it does take some knowledge, but that is a personal choice to do it that way.

People are still loosing access to their BTC every day, saying that people loose BTC by using LN is just silly. Don't have a proper backup of your wallet.dat file and your drive dies. Kiss your BTC goodby. Don't have a proper backup of your LN node data and your drive dies you can kiss your BTC goodby. See same.

I have several nodes running, some I disclose here, others I don't. Why, because I find it a fun, interesting project.

When I had some issues with one of my 'nodes in a box' https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5364113 there were NO issues with bringing up another node and recovering it because I had proper backups. I see people loosing funds on the LN NOW as not following how to do it properly. Years ago when things were more in alpha then beta you could more easily shoot yourself in the foot now it's harder if you do things the right way. Same with BTC a dozen+ years ago.

-Dave

[franky1]

Even smaller LN providers are ROUTING 1000tx a day now: https://lqwdtech.com/node-stats/

running total transactions of all nodes: 456,464 over 2 YEARS
bitcoin transactions ONE DAY: 453,811
1/730 (0.137%)

and again lets remind people of history

did you also know although LN only achieved just over 5k liquidity last year and at 4.5k ish now..
taking YEARS to achieve that and months to start lose it

schemers have utopian promised LN's (faked) capabilities to countries.. (el salv, nigeria, swiss) and all three have tried , found the flaws and started to drop using LN, some sooner and faster then others
even most recently Lugano swiss only managed to scheme 370 merchants into crypto and already within months 90 dropped from accepting LN

many people seen the flaws and moved over to other subnetworks and other things that gained more liquidity in less time..

basically..
with the hopes and dreams of empty promises of core devs suggesting they wont scale bitcoin network, until the Lightning Network scales to 1ml nodes.. well then yes LN is a failure and we will be waiting forever

we should not be playing these silly utopian games of trying to push all bitcoiners over to LN to reach this mystical number. and then hope core devs follow through to finally work on bitcoin scaling.. their game is if they can get people off the bitcoin network they wont need to scale bitcoin

so lets skip the stupid games and just prompt core devs to just get on with scaling bitcoin and stop this bait and switch games of the last 7 years of stall tactics and fake utopian feature offerings that never benefit bitcoiners


as for those that dont understand how bitcoin does not enter or exit the bitcoin network via other networks
in short IT DOES NOT. bitcoins remain on the bitcoin network

heres another thing..
i have UTXO's from 2012+
i COULD use those UTXO's as spending references for other networks (crapcoins/forks/subnetworks) this does not then make the other networks using the UTXO reference as being bitcoin payments.. they are using other formats on the other networks when making the actual payments(that are not settled on bitcoin) on other networks and even if the separate 'state' of rounded pegged value was converted into a format thats understood in bitcoin to settle some debt of the other network does not make those other network communications "bitcoin"

dont hit reply to blind faith allegiance defend LN like a cult.. instead use technical critical thinking and scrutiny of actual independent thought about what you are trying to presume when you say how you feel/believe/blind trust that things are as they were promoted to you in utopian dream format of pretending another network is bitcoin.. then you fail to have a convincing reason why you want to pretend another network is bitcoin.. accept that its not

[DaveF]

running total transactions of all nodes: 456,464 over 2 YEARS
bitcoin transactions ONE DAY: 453,811
1/730 (0.137%)

Uh NO. Those are just the transactions that were ROUTED THROUGH LQwD them not ALL of LN.

As in A-> LQWD node -> someplace else.
Not the transactions they sent.
Not the transactions they received.
Just the ones that passed through.

And it's 300000 give or take over the last year.

You hate lightning, fine we get it. Don't use it.

I opened a channel this morning to a well connected node with a low fee since I did not care how long it took to open. Got lucky and it opened quick. (yea)
Made 7 LN txs to pay bills (boo)
And just set a close TX at a low fee since I don't care how long it takes.

But for now, welcome to my ignore list. You don't want to care you just want to shout at the world.

I see more and more people using LN every day. Or at least my clients are getting more LN payments now then ever.
The number of merchants that accept LN are growing.

-Dave

[franky1]

I see more and more people using LN every day. Or at least my clients are getting more LN payments now then ever.
The number of merchants that accept LN are growing.

really?


but yea stay ignorant

oh and by the way.. you could have paid 7 merchants with ONE bitcoin transaction using 7 outputs and saved more money.. rather than 2 transactions to lock and unlock bitcoin (open and close LN and do crap on other networks)

but hey you want to stay ignorant.. guess you beleive more in faith, and mystique rather than data and facts.

[d5000]

bitcoin is not deposited into LN.. bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network

Your first statement is wrong, the second one is true. This is no contradiction, because LN and Bitcoin aren't "separate". LN nodes are also Bitcoin nodes.

There is of course LN-specific data exchanged between LN nodes that does not touch the rest of the Bitcoin nodes, but that's the whole point: LN exists to make it possible to limit the data exchange about a group of Bitcoin (!) transactions to a subnetwork. It is there to prevent all Bitcoin nodes having to know about these transactions.

(I put these three words into italics because they can be misunderstood: Every Bitcoin node who wants it can of course be a LN node too. But if he doesn't want to, he shouldn't have to bother about LN transactions.)

as for the LN balance that goes back and forth and renegotiated.. they certainly can double spend the UTXO reference across multiple channels. there is no network wide audit in LN(as for who eventually gets to win that actual amount at settling.. only one will and it may not be your rented channel/temp channel)

That's FUD. An attacker can try that, yes. That's LN's drawback, that you have to actively monitor the channels you have open, but if you are entitled to own a certain balance according to LN rules and the network operates correctly (again: no discussion about bugs if we talk about the concept) then you can always challenge this attack attempt. If you try to use double spending the HTLCs and RSMCs have timelocks long enough that every attempt can be challenged.

You can call the UTXO reference "credit limit" if you want, and the LN transactions "debt", if you like to insist on these technicalities. The fact that they don't share almost nothing with conventional debt in the fiat system remains.

LN didnt function via just punishments but now needs things like "watch towers" and other third parties

That was quite clear from the start on. And if you monitor your channels actively you don't need watchtowers.

i want bitcoin(btc) to scale, with multiple dev teams, multiple node brands with equal power but no absolute central power, all offering proposals where the best proposals moves forward by devs listening to the community needs to provide the best solutions that everyone can then agree on using real consensus(consent of the masses) and applying those features to all brands to move forward(no single solo controlling brand)

Either that is already the case (everybody can create a bitcoin client with its own rules, the question is if miners and economic nodes use it ...) or you want take the "several brands" approach to the extreme nobody knows what the Bitcoin protocol actually is.
Let's get honest: you want big blocks to be enabled (and are still angry that in 2017 the decision didn't play out like you wanted) that's all

[yazher]

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.

They just made this article to confuse people and make them lose hope of its progress while that is not the case. They just wanted it to have fast development and have more people use it right now. They don't give any credit to those people who have been updating it and making some huge developments for it all these years and since it has not become a norm to use for transactions and only a few people use them, they quickly jump to the conclusion that it failed and it didn't reach the people expectations. But LN is something not to be rushed and just because we have lots of ways to trade bitcoins quickly right now, it doesn't mean we won't be needing them in the future, just wait and see, I'm sure Bitcoin LN will to be a trend in the future when all of this rules and regulations will choke both the owners and users of exchanges.

[franky1]

bitcoin is not deposited into LN.. bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network

Your first statement is wrong, the second one is true. This is no contradiction, because LN and Bitcoin aren't "separate". LN nodes are also Bitcoin nodes.

There is of course LN-specific data exchanged between LN nodes that does not touch the rest of the Bitcoin nodes, but that's the whole point: LN exists to make it possible to limit the data exchange about a group of Bitcoin (!) transactions to a subnetwork. It is there to prevent all Bitcoin nodes having to know about these transactions.

(I put these three words into italics because they can be misunderstood: Every Bitcoin node who wants it can of course be a LN node too. But if he doesn't want to, he shouldn't have to bother about LN transactions.)

as for the LN balance that goes back and forth and renegotiated.. they certainly can double spend the UTXO reference across multiple channels. there is no network wide audit in LN(as for who eventually gets to win that actual amount at settling.. only one will and it may not be your rented channel/temp channel)

That's FUD. An attacker can try that, yes. That's LN's drawback, that you have to actively monitor the channels you have open, but if you are entitled to own a certain balance according to LN rules and the network operates correctly (again: no discussion about bugs if we talk about the concept) then you can always challenge this attack attempt. If you try to use double spending the HTLCs and RSMCs have timelocks long enough that every attempt can be challenged.

You can call the UTXO reference "credit limit" if you want, and the LN transactions "debt", if you like to insist on these technicalities. The fact that they don't share almost nothing with conventional debt in the fiat system remains.

LN didnt function via just punishments but now needs things like "watch towers" and other third parties

That was quite clear from the start on. And if you monitor your channels actively you don't need watchtowers.

i want bitcoin(btc) to scale, with multiple dev teams, multiple node brands with equal power but no absolute central power, all offering proposals where the best proposals moves forward by devs listening to the community needs to provide the best solutions that everyone can then agree on using real consensus(consent of the masses) and applying those features to all brands to move forward(no single solo controlling brand)

Either that is already the case (everybody can create a bitcoin client with its own rules, the question is if miners and economic nodes use it ...) or you want take the "several brands" approach to the extreme nobody knows what the Bitcoin protocol actually is.
Let's get honest: you want big blocks to be enabled (and are still angry that in 2017 the decision didn't play out like you wanted) that's all

LN's function does not 100% require a bitcoin node.. so lets make that clear
LN is not bitcoin, people can use LN using different mainnets.. so lets make that clear
also LN channels can be set up without needing a bitcoin UTXO.. so lets make that clear
bitcoin isnt deposited into LN, its collateralised and locked on bitcoin.. so lets make that clear
a bitcoin utxo can be used as a reference for many networks, not just LN.. so lets make that clear
LN does not have a network wide audit to ensure a utxo is solely used just for a specific LN channel/network.. so lets make that clear
much like old UTXO of bitcoin is not deposited into a fork/altcoin, even if used as reference in other networks payments..so lets make that clear

also people need to leave their house, go see friends/relatives, take vacations, sleep, so cant monitor constantly.. so lets make that clear

LN can operate without users forming a multisig to lock both parties into controling the credit before, during and at settlement.. lets make that clear

there are LN institutions with utxo that are 2-3 years old 'renting' balance to users that just arrive this year, this alone should emphasise enough how users are not in full control or part of a multisig of 50% control of funds to enforce compliance to any punishments. the true utxo owner can just self RBF his own tx and take what he wants completely separate to what the other person thinks they will get even with what they think includes a punishment

stop trying to describe LN using its "best-case" scenario.. as thats just a limited utopian fluffy cloud view of how LN actually operates. instead flush away the false promise utopian dream promotion ideals. and instead be properly and openly critical about all financial systems to ensure people know the risks they are getting into when using such systems. dont sound like a snake oil salesman as that makes you look bad in the end by avoiding the more accurate view of the issues people do and have experienced aswell as the issues even LN devs admit are possible

and no your definition of "big blocks" vs my opinions of what scales bitcoin differ. so lets make that clear. there are many ways to scale bitcoin that do not form your extremist view of how you perceive "big blocks" and lets not then use the stupidity narrative of pidgeon holing anyone that doesnt like the core roadmap as "big blockers" as that stupidity makes you look stupid

the only thing i can say about your post is atleast you sucked up and complied to the doomad rhetoric and earned your merit from him.. thats obvious.. but he wont refund you when things go wrong. so think more about risk assessment, transparency and risk mitigation rather than doomad rhetoric recruitment campaigns of ignoring the risks

[franky1]

They just made this article to confuse people and make them lose hope of its progress while that is not the case. They just wanted it to have fast development and have more people use it right now. They don't give any credit to those people who have been updating it

funny part is the article did reference "those people who have been updating it" and shown those people have admitted tothe flaws and moved to other projects

[franky1]

for those still thinking LN is fully working mature utopian dream, if you think LN is not thought of as a credit system/loan, and instead think of it as real money settled transfers, something always going to be cheap
watch what rusty russell (big time LN dev) has to say
watch it in full but im breaking it up into parts as people dont like lengthy transcripts(walls of texts)

https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1762

the current lightning network, is in a immature market. theres a huge number of hobbyists, theres people like me just running nodes for experimental reasons, i charge a fee so i can test the fee code, not because im making any bank out of it, as we see a maturation of the market we will see fee's become real, we cant extrapolate too much from whats there today because its much more of a hobbyist market

https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1820

as we see the professionalisation of infrastructure which will inevitably happen at scale we will see the number reflecting the utility and risk profile

https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1840

when you got a lightning node and infrastructure thats looking after hot funds, hopefully your security requirements are higher and those expenses need to be passed on at some point

https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1860

NB: do you find fee accrual and calculating an interest rate based off of that and the capital and time, do you find that interesting?
RR: i find that fascinating, i think that will be a new uh uh.. i think we are not there yet, we are just not in the professionalisation phase, but once we get to that maturity that number is something people will watch carefully because it is a real signal that is potentially very useful,

https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1890

RR: there was a early phase of where people were like oh ill set up a lightning node basically get yield on my bitcoin, and im like oh no thats a very risky way, you know that your dealing with some early software in those days and im not entirely convinced the userbase is there to support it, um if you want to compete to provide the best service im not going to discourage you too wildly in that gold rush

https://youtu.be/h6-WezlpXx0?t=1920

NB: yea basically when i first wrote about that concept people would ask me how much can i earn, and i said im just writing up a theoretical construct here .. but it is wonderful to see companies like river talk publish their interest rate, convert it to an APR, talk about the fees

note how they are talking in terms of credit/debt buzzwords of interest, apr, capital, yield

further on they talk about th future ideals, plans and thoughts of LN and think of it as a main macrochannels (main channels of custodians, hubs and factory channels) being bond services of a credit reserve in LN (we all know what bonds are) and then micro channels beneath that of trading, owing and servicing bonds  to then settle the bonds on the main channel of hubs and factorys(custodians).. oh and then detaching LN to not need or want people proper settling out of LN back to bitcoin (thunder-dome: two may enter one may leave)

[Wind_FURY]

LN's function does not 100% require a bitcoin node.. so lets make that clear
LN is not bitcoin, people can use LN using different mainnets.. so lets make that clear
also LN channels can be set up without needing a bitcoin UTXO.. so lets make that clear
bitcoin isnt deposited into LN, its collateralised and locked on bitcoin.. so lets make that clear
a bitcoin utxo can be used as a reference for many networks, not just LN.. so lets make that clear
LN does not have a network wide audit to ensure a utxo is solely used just for a specific LN channel/network.. so lets make that clear
much like old UTXO of bitcoin is not deposited into a fork/altcoin, even if used as reference in other networks payments..so lets make that clear

This is the kind of gibberish that trolls use to confuse the public, especially newbies, and gaslight users into questioning their understanding of Bitcoin/Lightning/Scaling Debate. Bolded in the quote was designed to confuse you. The moment you start debating him without knowing where he starts gaslighting you, you will fall for his traps.

If you trust him, and don't believe me, then ask the Core Developers who gave him two negative trust-ratings if the bolded part in the post is true.

for those still thinking LN is fully working mature utopian dream,

No one said that, it's just you putting words in everyone's mouths and making other people believe that they said that.

if you think LN is not thought of as a credit system/loan, and instead think of it as real money settled transfers, something always going to be cheap
watch what rusty russell (big time LN dev) has to say
watch it in full but im breaking it up into parts as people dont like lengthy transcripts(walls of texts)

The "is not a utopian dream" debate followed by the bolded quote. Another gaslighting trap.

[DaveF]

Lets keep in mind that franky1 is banned from Development & Technical Discussion so if he wants to post his garbage he has to post here.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192937.0
I added him back to ignore so unless someone quotes his posts I won't see them.

Back to this....

I equate the "LN is dead" articles / posts with the BTC is dead articles / posts. It's all clickbait.
Those of us that use it and see how much it's used. We know it's not dead.

I have posted before that MOST businesses don't care about BTC they just want to get paid. Same way they don't care about Visa or Master Card or a particular bank. They just want to sell their goods / services and get paid. They don't run their own nodes, they use a payment gateway. Same as taking Visa or Master Card or whatever.

More and more commercial crypto gateways are accepting LN because they want to take as many payments as possible for their customers.

Setting up a crypto node for real payment processing is a bit more complicated then clicking on the bitcoind executable and running it. Adding LN to it for use for customers is not that much more complicated. You already have multiple servers running RAID and all the security in front of them and everything else. And much like bitcoin growing because more merchants take it LN is growing the same way,

-Dave

[franky1]

Lets keep in mind that franky1 is banned from Development & Technical Discussion so if he wants to post his garbage he has to post here.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192937.0
I added him back to ignore so unless someone quotes his posts I won't see them.

do you know why Gmax felt harassed.. because i kept informing him from 2016 about segwit enabling JUNK* to be added to the blockchain in upto 4mb lumps where funky tx can add crap like books, images and other stuff

guess what that junk is called now and proven my point... ORDINALS

i was telling people how core was opening an exploit that allowed the junk like ordinals to happen even before ordinals came about to prove my point even before core opened up the exploit that eventually lead to ordinals coming about.. and over years i have been informing people and core devs of the exploit and other issues core have caused.

gmax wanted to pretend its not an exploit, gmax wanted to pretend they are gods who shouldnt be critiqued, reviewed, scrutinised, gmax wanted to pretend segwit was not something that would cause problems(pretending its perfect code).. but years later it proved itself to be a problem
he just was sponsored to force and mandate segwit with its exploit to be enabled and didnt like critique and scrutiny of the bug they were causing from it

go do your research

*

secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.

thirdly new nodes wont benefit from malleability. because malleabilities main headache was double spending.. and guess what.. RBF CPFP still make double spends a risk.

fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain. what should have been done was allow 2mb base thus needing ~3.6mb weight.. and also adding a rule that 'messages' could not be added. thus keeping the blockchain lean and utilised just for transactions and not novels/adverts/messages. afterall if a communication tool like twitter or SMS can limit how much someone writes.. then so should bitcoin.
we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or other nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.

i wont post all the times i kept highlighting the exploit between 2016-2019 to which gmax calls harassment (so he can avoid finding a fix/admitting the fault/exploit)
but my post history is there for anyone to read

yep they didnt want the exploit fixed even when knowing it existed in 2016 before the exploit even activated.. and in the 7 years since it has been active

even now they pretend they had no pre-knowledge and need now endless time to look into ways to fix it (aka stall/delay/avoid fixing it via their lies)
we should always be scrutinising core devs, they should not be banning people who scrutinise them.

I equate the "LN is dead" articles / posts with the BTC is dead articles / posts. It's all clickbait.
Those of us that use it and see how much it's used. We know it's not dead.

even a dead body has utility.. science, research, organ donation.. but here is the thing.. LN is not even on the same scale as bitcoin.. bitcoin has a pulse.. LN does not.. daves failure is he has become a ignorant sheep to a narrative of things he has not researched. he just obides by a narrow usecase of hopes and promotions, of things that have not met its promises but he will just dream the dream in his coma
as for topic: losing faith: yep LN fans sound like a cult


when people realise how limited LN is how it does have liquidity limits and failure rates of payments (even rusty russel admits to this). has bottlenecks and other bugs, including how the punishments do not work(even rusty russel admits to this). even other LN devs admit to the issues. even the remaining LN devs that are lagging around trying to find work arounds admit LN has not fulfilled its promises and instead turned into a different system than first promised/conceived

LN dev and many many thousands of users have found failures and stopped using LN and moved to other projects.. even poon who 'conceived' LN moved away from LN. he grieved the losses and moved on

[DooMAD]

LN is not bitcoin, people can use LN using different mainnets.. so lets make that clear

So franky1 is still falsely claiming that no one uses LN on Bitcoin whilst at the same time pointing out that it could be used on other networks where vastly fewer people use it?  

Yes, people can uses LN via other coins, but hardly anyone does.  LN usage on the BTC network is orders of magnitude greater than it is on any other chain.  If franky1 wasn't one of the most dishonest people to ever disgrace this forum, he might admit that.  

I thought there might be a future for things like atomic swaps via LN, but unless things change soon, there simply wouldn't be enough demand for it on the altcoin side for that to be viable.  But franky1 went as far as to claim that people would use LN to lead a "mass exodus" and abandon BTC to settle on other chains:
___

• people will deposit bitcoins into LN. play around on LN but not want to get BTC back(slow confirms, only ~2k tx per block, higher fee's than many countries min wage). people will instead want to exit LN via an altcoin thats cheaper and faster.
  

  people will deposit fiat into an exchange and realise fee's are lower, withdrawals are faster using the other coins compatible with LN. such as litecoin, vertcoin and others. after all users will only want to hold onto value as an actual blockchain coin for just long enough to get it out of an exchange and into an LN channel.
  
  they wont care about which coin it is.
  

  in short not sorting out bitcoins network issues and swaying people off network. wont really help people to want to use bitcoin or return to the network.. instead they will just prefer to swap to altcoins within LN and then use other coins network...
  

___

That dire prophecy was a wet fart from the offset.  It will literally never happen, but he won't admit that because he's a sociopath.

also LN channels can be set up without needing a bitcoin UTXO.. so lets make that clear

Is he still making false and potentially libellous statements about BitRefill?  Doesn't matter if he doesn't understand a single word of what he's saying, he'll continue to repeat it forever anyway.  What a total dumbfuck.

And, not that it's relevant to the topic in any way, franky1 is also a massive transphobe.  Just an all-round piece of shit in general, really.

[franky1]

And, not that it's relevant to the topic in any way, franky1 is also a massive transphobe.  Just an all-round piece of shit in general, really.

he wants to insult and antagonise using things he does not understand..

ill make a "offtopic post" to reference his ignorance
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5492462.msg63932557#msg63932557

as for LN services doing 'channel renting' using UTXO that were locked/unspent months/years before the user even requested a channel
as for LN services doing 'channel renting' using unconfirmed UTXO's which are not locked when user requests a channel

many LN services also do create channels of msat balance that dont even reference a new UTXO specific for a new channel. nor do some services require ant UTXO reference due to using "temp ID" for a channel

[d5000]

LN's function does not 100% require a bitcoin node.. so lets make that clear

Of course you can adapt LN to altcoins and people can run swap nodes.
I'm talking about "Bitcoin LN" (i.e. those nodes storing/exchanging Bitcoin transactions) here, and I think this is also clear for you.

bitcoin isnt deposited into LN, its collateralised and locked on bitcoin.. so lets make that clear

Again: first statement untrue, second is true: it is both deposited "into LN" (from a "systemic" view) as it is "collateralized and locked on Bitcoin". It's both. Clever, not?

a bitcoin utxo can be used as a reference for many networks, not just LN.. so lets make that clear
LN does not have a network wide audit to ensure a utxo is solely used just for a specific LN channel/network.. so lets make that clear

Please explain how that could work. You create a multisig transaction with one channel partner (more imo still aren't implemented) when you open your channel, and that's all you have to audit, that these funds are "real". How can you create this multisig transaction and then use the reference ... where exactly? For a RGB token maybe (where the rules are set off-chain)?

also people need to leave their house, go see friends/relatives, take vacations, sleep, so cant monitor constantly.. so lets make that clear

I wrote already there are tradeoffs. Please read this post again. Let's make that clear

LN can operate without users forming a multisig to lock both parties into controling the credit before, during and at settlement.. lets make that clear

there are LN institutions with utxo that are 2-3 years old 'renting' balance to users that just arrive this year, this alone should emphasise enough how users are not in full control or part of a multisig of 50% control of funds to enforce compliance to any punishments. the true utxo owner can just self RBF his own tx and take what he wants completely separate to what the other person thinks they will get even with what they think includes a punishment

Here again you are mentioning the "LN services provider model", which is not part of core LN. It's a centralized service on top of LN, just like FTX was a centralized service on top of Bitcoin.
That it's sold to you like it's "your LN node"? Ok, here I'm with you: this is ... not good. Just as FTX wasn't good for Bitcoin.

And (bypassing your ad hominem bullshit) yes you already wrote that you don't want extremely large blocks. But just out of curiosity: would 8 MB blocks be enough for you? Because up to 8 MB I myself would not have a problem (I would have more problem with the fact a hard fork would be needed for that, but maybe a Segwit-style softfork is also possible). But 8 MB is where the problematic issues with bandwidth/CPU/memory begin which would lead to centralization. Maybe 16 MB if we take already into account top-end consumer hardware, but that is already too much for me.

[franky1]

LN's function does not 100% require a bitcoin node.. so lets make that clear

Of course you can adapt LN to altcoins and people can run swap nodes.
I'm talking about "Bitcoin LN" (i.e. those nodes storing/exchanging Bitcoin transactions) here, and I think this is also clear for you.

without you sinking your head into the small box thinking of a narrow use case of 'best-case-scenario'.. think critically of LN as a whole and its lack of auditing and restraints, lack of security over all..

people can create channels without bitcoin network communication to someones device. and still swap msats about that are not pegged to altcoins but supposedly deemed as msats pegged to bitcoin value/msats representations of bitcoin value.
LN has no network wide audit that checks each channel against bitcoin. LN has no strict requirement to enforce msats supposedly representing bitcoin value actually being 100% strictly contracted to bitcoin value... LN users have a multitude of ways to create channels that APPEAR or are DEEMED as being pegged value of bitcoin without the need of communicating/checked/secured with the bitcoin network
you are not forced to be a full bitcoin node to use LN when dealing with value or represented credit of a bitcoin locked collateral

i know you want to narrow conversations of the small narrow best-use-case dream scenario of one approach.. but LN is broader than the small promoted use-case and has much more flaws that prove the best-use-case is marginal

bitcoin isnt deposited into LN, its collateralised and locked on bitcoin.. so lets make that clear

Again: first statement untrue, second is true: it is both deposited "into LN" (from a "systemic" view) as it is "collateralized and locked on Bitcoin". It's both. Clever, not?

how can you agree bitcoin doesnt leave the bitcoin network.. then go silly by saying bitcoin does enter an entirely other network

a reference of a txid is not the same as the bitcoin on the bitcoin network. much like unmoved utxo from say 2012(pre forks) have the same reference in 2024 for bitcoin but when on a different network(fork/crapcoin) that reference then becomes something different and not considered bitcoin because its not being used on the bitcoin network to move value on the bitcoin network.. the value moved on another network is no longer deemed as bitcoin
and again LN also does not require 100% of the time a txid to open channels and supply users with msat.

a bitcoin utxo can be used as a reference for many networks, not just LN.. so lets make that clear
LN does not have a network wide audit to ensure a utxo is solely used just for a specific LN channel/network.. so lets make that clear

Please explain how that could work. You create a multisig transaction with one channel partner (more imo still aren't implemented) when you open your channel, and that's all you have to audit, that these funds are "real". How can you create this multisig transaction and then use the reference ... where exactly? For a RGB token maybe (where the rules are set off-chain)?

first clear your mind of utopian dream usecase of LN

now rationally think.. there are thousands of networks right now that have utxo references of early adopters of bitcoin before all the forks
same reference number used over multiple networks.. this does not mean they are all bitcoin
actual bitcoin does not leave the bitcoin blockchain.. thats what makes the coin in the blockchain what it is

the stuff created when using other networks become other units/tokens/iou's of other networks. emphasis: when used on other networks
and LN has no network wide audit that parties even need to form a multisig when creating a channel. nor does it mean that the references (if used) are solely locked to only work in one channel

also people need to leave their house, go see friends/relatives, take vacations, sleep, so cant monitor constantly.. so lets make that clear

I wrote already there are tradeoffs. Please read this post again. Let's make that clear

LN's proposition is not a tool where you just make a couple payments in half an hour then get on with your day.. its actually where you are presumed to need to stay in LN long term and do many transactions to make it financially beneficial compared to just using bitcoin
if you think LN design is to waste a bitcoin fee to open LN.. then make 7 payments in LN in 5 minutes and then waste another bitcoin fee to settle up the IOU, in a small timeframe, to then close LN and get on with day.. not caring about consequences..  well you are incorrect.
because you could just make 1 bitcoin transaction, using bitcoin with 7 outputs to different destinations.. in that one tx and save making multiple tx
and save on the headaches of trying to set up channels and choose partners and route paths etc

the idea of LN is to stay in LN long term. meaning the requirement of never sleeping to monitor malicious counterparty. or hire a watchtower middleman so you can sleep. applies (other work around conditions apply to to mitigate risks of the flaws of LN)

anyway i read your link
your link is more about you foolishly thinking LN is a prepaid card.. when its actually (in its best case way you even speak of its) where you lock up collateral on bitcoin network and then as a reference of credit/collateral. to do buy now pay later on LN.. where the recipient is not pre-paid.. but given a IOU suggesting they will get paid later if/when they settle later
LN doesnt offer settlement confirmation(paid in full).. the bitcoin network does

LN can operate without users forming a multisig to lock both parties into controling the credit before, during and at settlement.. lets make that clear

there are LN institutions with utxo that are 2-3 years old 'renting' balance to users that just arrive this year, this alone should emphasise enough how users are not in full control or part of a multisig of 50% control of funds to enforce compliance to any punishments. the true utxo owner can just self RBF his own tx and take what he wants completely separate to what the other person thinks they will get even with what they think includes a punishment

Here again you are mentioning the "LN services provider model", which is not part of core LN. It's a centralized service on top of LN, just like FTX was a centralized service on top of Bitcoin.
That it's sold to you like it's "your LN node"? Ok, here I'm with you: this is ... not good. Just as FTX wasn't good for Bitcoin.

LN itself does not enforce a 50%:50% multisig channel policy of well audited collateral.. its actually YOU that is narrow thinking of "core LN" which is a narrow view service option of LN
you are stuck in the narrow view of a limited case usage of utopian ideal.. not critical thinking of LN as a whole.
you seem to want to white wash over the issues and just promote the utopian dream..
doomad does it and then blames all issues on "user error" when its infact LN flaw of not securing peoples value no matter the service/software used

And (bypassing your ad hominem bullshit) yes you already wrote that you don't want extremely large blocks. But just out of curiosity: would 8 MB blocks be enough for you? Because up to 8 MB I myself would not have a problem (I would have more problem with the fact a hard fork would be needed for that, but maybe a Segwit-style softfork is also possible). But 8 MB is where the problematic issues with bandwidth/CPU/memory begin which would lead to centralization. Maybe 16 MB if we take already into account top-end consumer hardware, but that is already too much for me.

you are really blind in regards to bitcoin scaling. completely obvious you are now talking the doomadism cult mantra to earn merit and ass kisses from him..

bitcoin scaling is not "big block" in the terms you have been indoctrinated into speaking about
there are many things involved..

by you just falling into the trap of "scaling=bigblock" narrative of doomadism cult. you have completely lost any intellect of understanding of bitcoin scaling
its not about politics of just choosing a bigger number of blocksize.

i am not "big block" of doomadism cult story/pigeon holing..
i am of the notion of bitcoin scaling

quick lesson
big block = dev/community politics choose a large fixed number and argue about the number
bitcoin scaling is about many approaches to allow more TRANSACTIONS per block
see the difference?

bitcoin scaling has many aspects
make transactions leaner than current average bytelength
re-integrate the 1mb:3mb segregation into a unified blockspace where the main tx data gets to utilise the 3mb space
fee formulaes to not punish everyone in some fee war. but instead to punish the bloaters and spammers the most while incentivising the lean, efficient, less frequent users that dont bloat spam
and code that analyses block fill rates over a period of time and allows more blockspace if there is prolonged congestion
(much like how "difficulty" does not need dev politics decision of changing difficulty, but self manages by using blockdata to work itself out)

also it appears you have not done the math on data storage or bandwidth of the blockchain nor how bitcoin functions.
 
firstly most transactions are not validated at block confirmation... they are validated at pre-confirm relay. and put into mempool
we already know by the size of mempool. nodes can handle more then 16mb.. because mempools store, relay transactions in much more numbers than 4mb, 8mb, 16mb per 10minutes
many have already done analysis of how many milliseconds it takes to validate and mempool and collate thousands of transactions.. you would be surprised how little time it takes

do some research on the 'mempool fill time rate' if you want a accurate figure of transaction propagation and validation and bandwidth of majority of data that goes around the network

as for when a block confirms and the block is propagated. due to things like compact block. its normally only the header and txid merkletree that is broadcast. which is much less data than you think moving around when a solved block propogates

enjoy doing that research, it will enlighten you

oh and heres the funny
if someones computer can validate and broadcast to a peer "millions of transactions a second" on LN.. it gives you a hint to how fast it takes to relay and validate transactions pre-confirm on bitcoin..

seeing as you are LN centric.. here is an idea
swap "LN hops per millisecond", for "bitcoin relay per millisecond" and you will get the idea of peer speed of data bandwidth, relay, validation times

oh by the way
due to how LN in your best case scenario needs PSBT and a couple verifications and communication cycles before finalising a 'state' agreement of a valid payment in LN.. before performing another payment
bitcoin relay can actually receive, validate, and store in mempool, and then work on next relay tx faster then LN's numbers
enjoy researching that

[jaydeconroy]

Seems like the Lightning Network is sparking more skepticism than lightning-fast transactions these days.