The Lightning Network: A failure?

[mindrust]

Yes I think in a lot of way it's a failure, most Bitcoin maxis are in denial.

i just a saw tweet from a maxi telling people to use custodial lightning wallet - this is centralization. this is what we're trying to avoid. Goes against everything Satoshi envisioned

I stopped running a lightning node because it's not real user friendly, i lost funds, my channels got closed. it's not reliable enough to make payments (unless connected to large centralized nodes) & I don't trust it's privacy. of course, if this changes in the future, I may go back. Until then, i prefer onchain.

problem is there no privacy onchain, unless you're willing to put in a lot of work & discipline, Coinjoin is super expensive, time consuming, & it only obfuscates your transactions.

Bitcoin fees will likely skyrocket rise as the price rises. The cost to open a lightning channel will rise too.

To me, Monero is the next logical move to scale and get privacy (top 2 priorities). It has dynamic block sizes to scale, keep fees low & it's about to get a massive upgrade to privacy - will have a huge anonymity set. Will make Coinjoin look like a joke.

Also, it's the most used & widely accepted privacy coin online (#1 on darknet markets), has lots of support for wallets, there's plenty of options to trade P2P without KYC, various decentralized exchanges (more coming online), working atomic swaps too....it's a thriving network. almost no one is paying attention to. IMO it's the only one that has a real chance to flip BTC.

I agree with almost anything you said but I am not sure if monero is the next station for us who prefer decentralizated networks. It is because monero don’t compromise. It is fully anonymous and it is a good thing but sometimes we need need transparency too.

As you know (or maybe not), litecoin has recently upgraded itself and added Grin’s MimbleWimble algo which provides fully anonymous transactions.

Here is an article which you can learn more about it:

How is privacy achieved through MimbleWimble?

The implementation of Mimblewimble incorporated into Litecoin makes use of a number of technologies in order to ensure privacy:

•Confidential Transactions keeps the amount transferred visible only to participants in the transaction, while still cryptographically guaranteeing that no more coins can be spent than are available.

•CoinJoin acts like a mixer to conceal the sender of particular transactions, by combining multiple inputs from different parties into a single transaction.

•Stealth Addresses conceal the recipient of a transaction, through single-use addresses that cannot be seen on the blockchain without the corresponding viewing key.  In Litecoin, these stealth addresses begin “ltcmweb1”.

Monero will never get widely accepted. The exchanges are delisting it and legit businesses don’t accept it.

I am not saying Ltc will succeed 100% since it shares something with monero (anonymous transactions) but it is optional to make these transactions. The chances are way higher for litecoin and people are already using it more than any other coin on bitpay.

[ABCbits]

--snip--
Unfortunately, these chains aren't as widely-recognized as the LN. The latter has strong marketing from crypto companies, businesses, and exchanges alike.

Although adoption for the LN is still low, it's certainly greater than sidechains. The solution to the high fee problem is already there. What's challenging is making people use alternative solutions to have a better experience with Bitcoin. With plenty of altcoins to choose from, why focus on scaling Bitcoin, anyways?

You're answered your own question on previous sentence.

--snip--

I am not saying Ltc will succeed 100% since it shares something with monero (anonymous transactions) but it is optional to make these transactions. The chances are way higher for litecoin and people are already using it more than any other coin on bitpay.

Government pressure also makes exchange delist many coin with optional privacy feature (such as zcash and dash).

[franky1]

when you become a router on LN you become a MSB(money service business) which then means you are suppose to register as a MSB(payment facilitator for a commission/fee) to continue offering services as a router.. just wait until those regulations kick-in properly and governments enforce trying to locate LN routers.. watch how quick CEX's drop LN partners that are not registered as MSB's due to regulations CEX have to obide by via their business partners that facilitate value routing

then you will see why LN is a failure to offer a system of moving value that escapes government regulation inside the network
(bitcoin as a network is exempt from being treated as a MSB for node users/mining pools relaying bitcoin, because of how bitcoin works differently in regards to relaying/confirming transactions)

the whole borrowing other router(hops) locked value to pass-the-parcel/hot-potato value for payments for a fee. makes LN a failed model that ends in regulation

[shield132]

It's been years since the Lightning Network was launched, yet adoption has been quite slow. Most people are still transacting on-chain, despite the fact that sometimes network fees increase to undesirable levels due to the Ordinals hype. The L2 scaling solution promised to boost mainstream adoption for BTC with its ultra-low fees and blazing-fast speeds. It's still flawed, despite being established for a few years now.

What do you think? Is the LN a failure? If not, why? Should we give it more time to mature? What is the main reason most exchanges, merchants and/or businesses haven't adopted it yet?

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Recently there was an article published about bitcoin developers losing faith in lighting network - https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2024/04/02/are-bitcoin-developers-losing-faith-in-lightning/

For me, the lighting network is very impractical and its usage and adoption prove that it failed. Payment should be easy, not hard. It also shouldn't give you a headache. On Electrum I need at least 2 .mBTC to open a channel. The largest channel you can open is 10 BTC and I find it complicated for average Joe to create a lighting channel, deposit and then send/receive money with it. It's not really that hard but why should you use LN when you have Venmo, Cashapp, PayPal...?

[franky1]

It's been years since the Lightning Network was launched, yet adoption has been quite slow. Most people are still transacting on-chain, despite the fact that sometimes network fees increase to undesirable levels due to the Ordinals hype. The L2 scaling solution promised to boost mainstream adoption for BTC with its ultra-low fees and blazing-fast speeds. It's still flawed, despite being established for a few years now.

What do you think? Is the LN a failure? If not, why? Should we give it more time to mature? What is the main reason most exchanges, merchants and/or businesses haven't adopted it yet?

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Recently there was an article published about bitcoin developers losing faith in lighting network - https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2024/04/02/are-bitcoin-developers-losing-faith-in-lightning/

For me, the lighting network is very impractical and its usage and adoption prove that it failed. Payment should be easy, not hard. It also shouldn't give you a headache. On Electrum I need at least 2 .mBTC to open a channel. The largest channel you can open is 10 BTC and I find it complicated for average Joe to create a lighting channel, deposit and then send/receive money with it. It's not really that hard but why should you use LN when you have Venmo, Cashapp, PayPal...?

LN is not technically complicated.. its actually so simple that it has many bugs and flaws.. whats apparent is the flaws.. and also the bad code of the GUI(graphic user interface) and the user experience, which creates the ILLUSION of complexity. so lets call it what it is.. impractical complexity. not technical complexity

 this is done on purpose to make things look technical via hindrances people experience...  thus pretend it required smart people just to function.. when infact its just script kiddies who jumbled things together really quickly to meet some sponsored workload for a cheap pay day. and the annoyances added to bitcoin to pretend they were needed to make LN work are there to push people into using it in a certain way that only the sponsors take advantage over its users to get ROI from the games played of trying to push people away from bitcoin and into the flawed LN system that doesnt meet its expectations promises and hopes and dreams which they keep telling people to patiently wait for heaven and utopia to arrive

LN is not a blockchain nor require network wide consensus. thus LN could have been wrote differently from scratch to actually be compatible with bitcoin rather then do the crap they did to make it appear complicated then demand bitcoin change to become LN compatible

even now someone can re-write an entire subnetwork system that learns from LN mistakes and not need bitcoin to change to be compliant with a new subnetwork. but instead make the subnetwork easily compliant with bitcoin.. but we all know that doesnt benefit the sponsors that wanted LN

[BlackHatCoiner]

Will make Coinjoin look like a joke.

It already does. To coinjoin, you have to create another (mixing only) wallet, send your coins there, pay a decent amount for the whirlpool fee, wait for lots of days for your coins to get remixed sufficiently, and once that ends, you must be careful to not consolidate the mixed coins together, as you're losing in terms of privacy. And on top of that, you have to be aware that your whirlpool participants might screw things up, ruin their privacy, and ruin yours as a consequence.

In Monero, there are no coin control headaches, participants that may screw you up by mistake, pool fees, nothing. Simply send and receive XMR, just like you're supposed to.

[franky1]

By "subnetworks" do you mean "sidechains"? If that's the case, then yes, they're a much safer and reliable option than the LN.

The main difference is that sidechains always rely on a certain third party, while LN can be custodial. I'll repeat what I said during high fees in 2017: I don't care how Bitcoin scales, as long as it does it.

"bitcoin scales"
not "stop using bitcoin, abandon bitcoin and use another network...... that is not bitcoin scaling. thats bitcoin abandonment

these LN fangirls who idolise people should stop using bitcoin and adopt LN are not here to scale bitcoin or want bitcoin to scale. they want bitcoin to fail and other networks to replace it as the things people are locked into

as for those looking for privacy..
instead of advertising other networks.. did you know you can break off your UTXO taint. and be given fresh coins without taint on the bitcoin network

much like ordinals done special deals with mining pools.. privacy guys can too
simply arrange to have tainted transactions that use all the UTXO value as a mining pool fee.. thus 'destroy utxo' fully

and then the pool can use certain amounts of previous, current, future rewards they hoard as a payout to the privacy guy. thus frsh coins. where the privacy guy is seen as just a miner getting his award from the splits of the reward

[Abiky]

The main difference is that sidechains always rely on a certain third party, while LN can be custodial. I'll repeat what I said during high fees in 2017: I don't care how Bitcoin scales, as long as it does it.

Even if Bitcoin turns centralized in the long run? Scaling should be done in a responsible manner to help prevent BTC losing its core aspects of decentralization and censorship-resistance. Why do you think chains with a big block size (BCH and BSV) didn't succeed? Because they chose to sacrifice decentralization in favor of high performance and cost-efficiency. Layer-2 networks like the Lightning Network are a much safer bet. Even though the LN is flawed by design, it's a temporary solution meant to scale BTC without driving it away from its decentralized principles. If the LN shuts down or gets compromised, the main BTC blockchain will still be running as usual.

Developers need to get their act together by focusing on fixing the LN's issues to make it a reliable scaling solution for all. Improving UX (user experience) is the first thing they need to do. At least, we have plenty of options to choose from. If you're in a hurry and want to save money, why not use an altcoin ("shitcoin") instead?

[franky1]

Developers need to get their act together by focusing on fixing the LN's issues to make it a reliable scaling solution for all.

LN is not a scaling solution for bitcoin. its a backdoor to get people to abandon bitcoin
LN is not a solution for bitcoin. its not even bitcoin, its another network. bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network
LN is not a solution for all. again trying to get "all" to leave bitcoin for LN is a idiot philosophy

those thinking LN is next gen bitcoin everyone should use, is the same crazy games altcoins/crapcoin/forks that brand steal "bitcoin" have made

[BlackHatCoiner]

much like ordinals done special deals with mining pools.. privacy guys can too

Nice. So instead of refusing to buy this nonsense, let's just give up our privacy options like trustless coinjoins and XMR swaps and put trust on mining pools, as if these new coins are invulnerable to being called "tainted" again. 

Man, you're insane.

Even if Bitcoin turns centralized in the long run? Scaling should be done in a responsible manner to help prevent BTC losing its core aspects of decentralization and censorship-resistance. Why do you think chains with a big block size (BCH and BSV) didn't succeed?

Apart from BSV which was an exception, we frequently notice altcoins like Litecoin and Monero being used more as a currency than Bitcoin. Check out this post from stompix: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478905.msg63402003#msg63402003.

To me the answer is crystal clear. People don't care about decentralization and censorship resistance that much for their financial transactions. They care about those properties when we're talking about the best asset there is. Bitcoin proponents view bitcoin more as an asset than a currency, and that's why it is not worth the risk to implement significant changes. It's that simple, yet we're making it seem so complicated somehow.

[franky1]

much like ordinals done special deals with mining pools.. privacy guys can too

Nice. So instead of refusing to buy this nonsense, let's just give up our privacy options like trustless coinjoins and XMR swaps and put trust on mining pools, as if these new coins are invulnerable to being called "tainted" again.  

Man, you're insane.

if you think putting your value into a "privacy serviceX" that regulators demand/delegate other services to watch users of "privacy service X".. by you putting your value into "privacy service X" puts you into the targets/sights which you are pretending to evade

when regulators say that coins used in mixing via coinjoin is to be put on a watch list
AND THEN .. YOU then use coinjoin, thus puts your coins on a watch list
its YOU that becomes insane

however instead by disposing of your coin as a fee, and then getting FRESH coin from a mining pool from a mining reward.. is not mixing thus not on some watchlist nor treated as a target/not watched with same scrutiny
analogy
police decide they will put speed traps and traffic cops on highway101.. publish that anyone travelling on highway 101 will be watched and checked for multiple things.. (warrants, traffic/speeding tickets, anything to raise suspicion to need to investigate a driver)
and you decide to promote that everyone should drive down highway 101 "for privacy".. you are doing the exact opposite of giving good advice

i am in this analogy telling people to trade in their second hand car and get a new car with no gps history, no previous drivers and never had a speeding/traffic ticket

you dont need to give away your name and location to get bitcoin rewards from mining pools

[Abiky]

Apart from BSV which was an exception, we frequently notice altcoins like Litecoin and Monero being used more as a currency than Bitcoin. Check out this post from stompix: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478905.msg63402003#msg63402003.

To me the answer is crystal clear. People don't care about decentralization and censorship resistance that much for their financial transactions. They care about those properties when we're talking about the best asset there is. Bitcoin proponents view bitcoin more as an asset than a currency, and that's why it is not worth the risk to implement significant changes. It's that simple, yet we're making it seem so complicated somehow.

Of course. LTC and XMR are often viewed by many as currencies. NOT a long-term investment or store of value. I guess their total supply has something to do with this. Bitcoin's limited supply and deflationary mechanism has led the majority to use it more as a Gold alternative than anything else. There's nothing we can do to change this, especially when "Wall Street" is involved. Only a small portion of people will use BTC as a currency for day-to-day payments.

Given that the majority is "hodling" BTC, the Lightning Network and other subnetworks/sidechains will remain a niche for the tech enthusiast. At least, people have a choice. Who knows where on-chain fees will be in the future?

[BlackHatCoiner]

when regulators say that coins used in mixing via coinjoin is to be put on a watch list
AND THEN .. YOU then use coinjoin, thus puts your coins on a watch list

Regulators might as well say that doing self-custody is to be put on a "watch list", I don't care. If someone wants privacy, then coinjoins and XMR is the way, and that's why regulators try to discourage their use as much as possible. If we switched to mixing using mining pools, then guess what; this process would then be considered illicit, and anyone mixing through the pools would be "put on a watch list".

By the way, you do know that their operation would then be considered a money transmitting service, right? I'm just saying, because I know you're blubbering about this when it comes to lightning.

[franky1]

when regulators say that coins used in mixing via coinjoin is to be put on a watch list
AND THEN .. YOU then use coinjoin, thus puts your coins on a watch list

Regulators might as well say that doing self-custody is to be put on a "watch list", I don't care. If someone wants privacy, then coinjoins and XMR is the way, and that's why regulators try to discourage their use as much as possible. If we switched to mixing using mining pools, then guess what; this process would then be considered illicit, and anyone mixing through the pools would be "put on a watch list".

By the way, you do know that their operation would then be considered a money transmitting service, right? I'm just saying, because I know you're blubbering about this when it comes to lightning.

YOU are telling people to use mixing services such as coinjoin which are already considered by regulators as suspicious enough to delegate via active regulation that services to put funds on watchlists and investigate if it reaches thresholds

thus im saying use ways that are currently not in regulators remit and currently regulators have deemed mining as NOT A MSB
you keep promoting people should use things that do fall into regulators remit.. and you want people to avoid using things outside of regulators remit.. (you are the opposite of helpful)

as for LN:
i am saying about regulators already discerning that subnetwork routers are considered MSB

thus again when you promote LN routing you are trying to push people into things that fall into regulation
you are not helping those you advise

you are the one blubbering because you have not even done the research on the regulations to know whats good for users and not good for users


as for you then blubbering about "Regulators might as well say that doing self-custody is to be put on a "watch list"
you are blubbering about things that are not current regulations... you are not doing the research or talking about current active risks of users using services, features, functions, utilities..

in regards to blackhats blubber about his fear mongering self custody and peer to peer of non mixing transaction....
lets let the financial action task force clarify
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/reports/12-Month-Review-Revised-FATF-Standards-Virtual-Assets-VASPS.pdf

52. Currently, peer-to-peer transfers of virtual assets, without the use or
involvement of a VASP or financial institution, are not explicitly subject to AML/CFT
obligations under the revised FATF Standards. The lack of explicit coverage of peer-
to-peer virtual asset transactions of this type was deliberate, as the revised FATF
Standards’ general focus is on placing AML/CFT obligations on intermediaries
between individuals and the financial system. The lack of explicit coverage of peer-to-
peer transactions via private / unhosted wallets was a source of concern for a number
of jurisdictions. Jurisdictions noted that transfers to the unregulated peer-to-peer
sector could present a leak in tracing illicit flows of virtual assets.
53. However, jurisdictions did not consider that there was sufficient evidence to
warrant changing the revised FATF Standards at this point at time. There was
insufficient evidence demonstrating that the number and value of anonymous peer-
to-peer transactions has changed enough since June 2019 to present a materially
different ML/TF risk. Further research could be undertaken with the VASP sector,
academics and software experts and engineers to better understand the scope of the
unregulated peer-to-peer sector.
63. Peer-to-peer transactions via private / unhosted wallets. Peer-to-peer
transfers of virtual assets, without the use or involvement of a VASP or financial
institution, are not explicitly subject to AML/CFT obligations under the revised FATF

thus the blackhat blubber he got from oeleo where they were insinuating that bitcoin devs, bitcoin nodes and bitcoin miners are considered 'vasp(MSB) IS FALSE

they made that crap up to try to recruit people into using LN.. via fake scare tactics

[BlackHatCoiner]

YOU are telling people to use mixing services such as coinjoin which are already considered by regulators as suspicious enough to delegate via active regulation that services to put funds on watchlists and investigate if it reaches thresholds

So, let me get this straight. You notice that regulators are hostile on mixing solutions such as coinjoin, yet you're somehow under the impression that they will not be hostile on mixing via mining pools. Makes sense! 

thus im saying use ways that are currently not in regulators remit and currently regulators have deemed mining as NOT A MSB

Your proposal is not currently in regulators' remit, because first of all it is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard, and second, because there is no implementation and usage due to the former. Be certain that if enough people started mixing through mining pools, regulators would deem it as suspicious and enact it as illicit, just as with coinjoins.

[franky1]

YOU are telling people to use mixing services such as coinjoin which are already considered by regulators as suspicious enough to delegate via active regulation that services to put funds on watchlists and investigate if it reaches thresholds

So, let me get this straight. You notice that regulators are hostile on mixing solutions such as coinjoin, yet you're somehow under the impression that they will not be hostile on mixing via mining pools. Makes sense!  

thus im saying use ways that are currently not in regulators remit and currently regulators have deemed mining as NOT A MSB

Your proposal is not currently in regulators' remit, because first of all it is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard, and second, because there is no implementation and usage due to the former. Be certain that if enough people started mixing through mining pools, regulators would deem it as suspicious and enact it as illicit, just as with coinjoins.

google the definition of MSB
google the definition of VASP
google the definition of payment facilitators

routing comes under the banner of being a VASP/MSB/payment facilitator

then google the regulations in regards to cryptocurrency(VASP)
and them look at how they are aware that there are payment facilitators/MSB/vasp not just on mainnet but that routing on subnetworks is in the regulations

ill give you a few highlights. but i wont spoon feed you like a baby, you should learn to do your own research.. you are old enough to feed yourself

https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/guidance/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf

85. AML/CFT regulations will apply to covered VA activities and VASPs, regardless of
the type of VA involved in the financial activity (e.g., a VASP that uses or offers AECs
to another person for various financial transactions), the underlying technology
(e.g., whether it uses mainnet or the use of embedded layering or other scaling
solutions), or the additional services that the platform potentially incorporates
(such as a mixer or tumbler or other potential features for obfuscation)

so yes they are fully aware of subnetworks (embedded layering or other scaling solutions)

being a vasp is not just cex on mainnet. its routing on subnetworks too

and like my previous post showed the explicitly exempted self custody self spending of own funds for self use as being a vasp.. and instead regulators are only going after those people acting as intermediaries facilitating payments for a fee(see definitions of vasp/msb/PF) on behalf of other people

which and to clarify mining is not a VASP activity(due to special exemption).. should you wish to dig deeper and feed yourself

[BlackHatCoiner]

Thanks for confirming publicly that you have nothing in response apart from BS.

[franky1]

Thanks for confirming publicly that you have nothing in response apart from BS.

im quoting stuff from actual regulators and task force
you are just crying like a baby that i dont spoon feed you every detail and instead i ask you to do more research

shows you dont actually care and dont want to learn..
but atleast i tried by actually quoting stuff.. you cant even be bothered to research to check things out for yourself

you are the one speaking BS
you cannot back up your assertions

https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/reports/12-Month-Review-Revised-FATF-Standards-Virtual-Assets-VASPS.pdf

FATF Glossary
Virtual asset service provider means any natural or legal person who is not covered
elsewhere under the Recommendations, and as a business conducts one or more of
the following activities or operations for or on behalf of another natural or legal
person:
i. exchange between virtual assets and fiat currencies;
ii. exchange between one or more forms of virtual assets;
iii. transfer¹⁵ of virtual assets;
iv. safekeeping and/or administration of virtual assets or instruments enabling
control over virtual assets; and
v. participation in and provision of financial services related to an issuer’s offer
and/or sale of a virtual asset

¹⁵  In this context of virtual assets, transfer means to conduct a transaction on behalf of another natural or
legal person that moves a virtual asset from one virtual asset address or account to another

and as previously clarified miners due to special exemption(covered elsewhere under the recommendations) are not VASP

but LN(embedded layering/other scaling solutions) routing(conduct a transaction on behalf of another natural or
legal person that moves a virtual asset from one virtual asset address or account to another) IS considered as VASP  

you self custody holding your own value and spending it to a destination for yourself is NOT A VASP
you acting as a middleman transferring value on behalf of another person IS A VASP (as is mixing and coinjoin)

get it yet, or are you going to play ignorance

..
i know you purposefully act dumb, ignorant and annoying to get spoonfed.. as toddlers do..
but you are older then that.. try to learn to do your own research and stop this childishness of doing these games to get spoonfed
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH and stop acting like an idiot.. especially when you dont like being called it even when you earn the idiot label

if you dont want to be called an idiot. stop acting like one.

[B1-66ER]

BTC>In my mind, when I think about layered software stack architecture, I always make an analogy with the Bitcoin network and the IPv4 network (IPv6 being another network).

They all have finite IPv4 addresses of 32 bits in size, IPv6 has 128 bits, and Bitcoin also has a finite number.

So, I see Lightning Network scaling similar to how I saw IPv4 address exhaustion.

“The IPv4 addressing structure provides an insufficient number of publicly routable addresses to give a distinct address to every Internet device or service. This problem has been mitigated for some time by changes in the address allocation and routing infrastructure of the Internet. The transition from classful network addressing to Classless Inter-Domain Routing delayed the exhaustion of addresses substantially. In addition, network address translation (NAT) permits Internet service providers and enterprises to masquerade private network address space with only one publicly routable IPv4 address on the Internet interface of a main Internet router, instead of allocating a public address to each network device.”

Source: Wikipedia

The problem with my analogy may not be the best, but I’m not here to impose my view, just to learn from each other in a respectful chit-chat..

[cryptosize]

BTC>In my mind, when I think about layered software stack architecture, I always make an analogy with the Bitcoin network and the IPv4 network (IPv6 being another network).

They all have finite IPv4 addresses of 32 bits in size, IPv6 has 128 bits, and Bitcoin also has a finite number.

So, I see Lightning Network scaling similar to how I saw IPv4 address exhaustion.

“The IPv4 addressing structure provides an insufficient number of publicly routable addresses to give a distinct address to every Internet device or service. This problem has been mitigated for some time by changes in the address allocation and routing infrastructure of the Internet. The transition from classful network addressing to Classless Inter-Domain Routing delayed the exhaustion of addresses substantially. In addition, network address translation (NAT) permits Internet service providers and enterprises to masquerade private network address space with only one publicly routable IPv4 address on the Internet interface of a main Internet router, instead of allocating a public address to each network device.”

Source: Wikipedia

The problem with my analogy may not be the best, but I’m not here to impose my view, just to learn from each other in a respectful chit-chat..

SegWit for BTC is the equivalent of NAT for IPv4.

It's a very good analogy, but only tech savvy people will get it...