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

[traincarswreck]

@franky1 is a conman as well.

sick of ur guys's lies. 

[1714631841]

1714631841

[1714631841]

1714631841

[1714631841]

1714631841

[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