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

[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.