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

[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

[1714632020]

1714632020

[1714632020]

1714632020

[1714632020]

1714632020

[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".