Are Bitcoin’s Layer 2 Solutions Finally Enabling Everyday Microtransactions?

[BitGoba]

With scaling solutions like Lightning maturing post-2024 halving, we’re seeing Bitcoin’s ecosystem expand beyond speculation into practical use cases—think coffee payments, cross-border tips, or even IoT device micropayments. But mainstream adoption still lags and is falling behind.

Have you started using BTC for small daily transactions via Layer 2? What’s the biggest hurdle: UX friction, merchant adoption, or trust in stability?

Let’s discuss real-world wins ( or fails)!

The best practice is to run your own Bitcoin node using Knots and Start9 OS, and open your own Bitcoin  Lightning channels. Mini PCs can be found for as little as $200 to $300, and you can also use a Raspberry Pi 5, which is much cheaper. Additionally, you can connect your Zeus wallet directly to your node.

The experience of paying via the Bitcoin  Lightning is excellent. Here are a few videos to show you how it works in practice  paying with Bitcoin at McDonald’s and other places.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_VkeiT4R0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRb2PFn3HJo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_5ve6rz61g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsoJJ3SF1fM

[HardFireMiner]

I dont see no difference in becoming salary in BTC or $. Now with as less as 0,5$ you can convert up to 500$ into BTC and the other way around. Yes, there are a couple of click to be made but still, it is 0,1% commission.

So if my salary is $500 and I can spend the whole $500 instantly, you're asking me to wasting my time to convert the money into BTC and pay $0.5, which left me $499.5 to spend and I also need to spend <$0.1 for every transactions I made?

If I received my salary in Bitcoin, this will encourage me to spend it.

Lightning fees are 0.5¢ (yes, cents). Saved 5 mins yesterday buying coffee with Phoenix. If your "salary" takes >10 sec to convert, you’re using the wrong wallet. Try it before FUD.

Bitcoin layer 2s are not bitcoin and even the more let's say promoted solutions like the one programmed by Adam Back are flawed in their design.

There's a centralised point of entry and exit for BTC in and out of this system and the issue remains that this ends up being trust based along with all the problems of centralisation.

How independent could a layer 2 remain if the programmers on the payroll for it were arrested and the company developing it disbanded?

We've seen in Coinbase's later 2 as well as in solana chain transactions were halted for extended periods of time until a fix was issued.
These situations are not pleasant and hint to extensive centralisation in these systems.

The most independent form of scaling for BTC is on-chain. Currently with segwit blocks there can be maybe 7 thousand transactions in a block every 10 minutes? Well, surely it's not fast enough to verify a transaction at this pace for everyday needs and also not enough capacity.

Hardware and network infrastructure had improved since this debate was happening last time, so perhaps it's time to start discussing on-chain scaling again.

L2s are Bitcoin (see: LN’s 17k nodes). Arrest devs? LN runs on your node. Coinbase/Solana halts ≠ decentralized L2s. Your "centralized exit" myth died with Fedimint’s trust-minimized custodians. Do homework.

I would say that for most, it's the UX friction, especially for those getting used to CEX-based experience, imo.. Other than that, I think it will become better and better as time goes on + the BTC payments made through Lightning is only going to increase..

CEX UX is jail. Lightning apps like Muun or Phoenix beat any exchange’s "simplicity" for payments. Try sending coffee money on Coinbase vs. scanning a QR in 2 sec. Merchant adoption is the real wall, not UX.

[alani123]

Yes it was just recently that a lightning network dev quit working on the project hinting that the design and the decisions behind the project are so flawed that he never sees if finished.

https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/1627569?utm_source=perplexity

As you can see, prominent developers have even gone as far as to call lightning network a scam.
It's not a solution, it's not secure, it's complicated and needs a lot of upkeep.

LN will never be bitcoin. No matter how many nodes it has.
This isn't FUD. It's plain facts.

[HardFireMiner]

Yes it was just recently that a lightning network dev quit working on the project hinting that the design and the decisions behind the project are so flawed that he never sees if finished.

https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/1627569?utm_source=perplexity

As you can see, prominent developers have even gone as far as to call lightning network a scam.
It's not a solution, it's not secure, it's complicated and needs a lot of upkeep.

LN will never be bitcoin. No matter how many nodes it has.
This isn't FUD. It's plain facts.

That Binance link? Random article citing one dev who quit Fedimint (not LN core). LN has 17k nodes, $50M+ capacity, and zero downtime since 2022. Your "scam" claim ignores actual usage: 12k+ merchants accept it today. If you think it’s "not bitcoin," run your own node and settle a payment. Stop parroting FUD.

[alani123]

I don't know why you would downplay the resignation of major contributors to a project especially when they go with such remarks.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471172.0

We had discussed this here and maybe you missed the discussion.

Lightning network has no downtime because they have invented the unique feature of decentralised downtime. The loose sense of a network remains but it's realistically very possible for the channels that power your transactions to all be down.

A very flawed system nonetheless.
The proposed solutions aren't better either.

We should avoid forking bitcoin at all costs. Let alone for favouring such a flawed system.
On chain scaling is simpler and we already have the finality and trustlessnes issues resolved.

[HardFireMiner]

I don't know why you would downplay the resignation of major contributors to a project especially when they go with such remarks.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471172.0

We had discussed this here and maybe you missed the discussion.

Lightning network has no downtime because they have invented the unique feature of decentralised downtime. The loose sense of a network remains but it's realistically very possible for the channels that power your transactions to all be down.

A very flawed system nonetheless.
The proposed solutions aren't better either.

We should avoid forking bitcoin at all costs. Let alone for favouring such a flawed system.
On chain scaling is simpler and we already have the finality and trustlessnes issues resolved.

Yes, I indeed missed that discussion. Nonetheless,  that email confirms LN’s security process ( not design) needs tweaks-like every protocol. Antoine’s “halt” is temporary, per his focus on Bitcoin Core. Your “flawed system” claim ignores $2B monthly volume and 99.8% uptime (LNBIG). On-chain scaling at 7 TPS? Fork required (which you oppose). Just run a node.

[KiaKia]

Have you started using BTC for small daily transactions via Layer 2?

No. Are there many places where you can pay with bitcoin where you live? Because where I live, there aren't any. If I search on coinmap, there are some shops where I could buy with bitcoin, but they're not the ones I frequent, not my supermarket, not my hairdresser, not where I fill up with gas.

Dubai is trying to make this work, although I've seen too many trials in the past and they all failed that's why I am not going to take this serious either but dubai is actually trying to make payment with BTC acceptable even in super market via a project called Tectum.

I know it's another probably crappy project that will fail after this bill market is over but the difference is they are trying  to make it work, which is in the near future it's possible that crypto payments will be everywhere.

It's been a long time that I have been looking forward to this, it will make life way easier but I think banks will be a culprit because wouldn't this idea affect the bank business? Readers what do you think.

[Satofan44]

Yes, I indeed missed that discussion. Nonetheless,  that email confirms LN’s security process ( not design) needs tweaks—like every protocol. Antoine’s “halt” is temporary, per his focus on Bitcoin Core. Your “flawed system” claim ignores $2B monthly volume and 99.8% uptime (LNBIG). On-chain scaling at 7 TPS? Fork required (which you oppose). Just run a node.

He's a 3rd world campaign shitposter spewing lies, when he never contributed anything in his life to Bitcoin. I tagged him already for his malicious lies regarding LN.   It is best to just ignore such people. It is akin to trying to convince your local butcher that his theories on quantum physics are wrong. 

CEX UX is jail. Lightning apps like Muun or Phoenix beat any exchange’s "simplicity" for payments. Try sending coffee money on Coinbase vs. scanning a QR in 2 sec. Merchant adoption is the real wall, not UX.

They indeed work great, much better than any altcoin. I strongly recommend everyone to install wallets like those, it is amazing how far LN has come. If you remember the old stories of failing routes and random errors.

[slong3393]

I haven figured out how to use the Lightning Network yet....

[alani123]

@Satofan44

It's funny how contrary to me posting sources of actual LN developers saying themselves LN is so lacking in security features its unusable, you just resort to name calling to get a point across.

I've seen no counter arguments supporting LN with evidence here. We need more than "transaction speed goes BRRRRR" if we're going to promote a solution for mass adoption.


Right now miners are accepting 0.1 sat/vByte transactions and many blocks are going under capacity since the mempool is nearly empty. This happens allthewhile other networks perceived as "crypto" propagate thousands of transactions per second. Clearly the mark has been missed by BTC. If we're to make a comeback something better than Lightning Network will be needed.

This isn't FUD. It's facts that LN developers would also stand by.

It's just that LN isn't ready for mass adoption, it' can't scale well and it's a big waste of resources to try and adopt it. We're going to need something more seamless by the level the competition has reached by now.
One day BTC will have a scaling solution. But LN ain't gonna be it.

We need to start this conversation from an entirely new base and you aren't helping with this attitude.

[hero_the_bossman]

What do you mean not many people are able to set up channels? Perhaps on desktop wallets or some advanced wallets. On mobile there are many reputable wallets that do it for you. All you need to do is deposit Bitcoin to your wallet and it will do it. It can't get more easier than that. On-chain transactions are not king if you need fast confirmation time. LN transactions are instant and they work great for small transactions.

You don't get the point.... There are millions of bitcoin users out there that have never ventured lightning payments mainly because they believe it's too technical to setup and also because of the convenience level of usage in their region. Lightning network is fast growing which is something I'm aware of but I'll still lay emphasis on the fact that it still isn't being used MAXIMALLY yet.

In some regions you'll find more shops and vendors that accept bitcoin on chain but don't even have a lightning channel setup and don't even plan on setting up one anytime soon even for payments within $100.

More coverage is needed then, it's a matter of time doing its own thing, and LN becoming more mainstream, so to speak

[HardFireMiner]

@Satofan44

It's funny how contrary to me posting sources of actual LN developers saying themselves LN is so lacking in security features its unusable, you just resort to name calling to get a point across.

I've seen no counter arguments supporting LN with evidence here. We need more than "transaction speed goes BRRRRR" if we're going to promote a solution for mass adoption.


Right now miners are accepting 0.1 sat/vByte transactions and many blocks are going under capacity since the mempool is nearly empty. This happens allthewhile other networks perceived as "crypto" propagate thousands of transactions per second. Clearly the mark has been missed by BTC. If we're to make a comeback something better than Lightning Network will be needed.

This isn't FUD. It's facts that LN developers would also stand by.

It's just that LN isn't ready for mass adoption, it' can't scale well and it's a big waste of resources to try and adopt it. We're going to need something more seamless by the level the competition has reached by now.
One day BTC will have a scaling solution. But LN ain't gonna be it.

We need to start this conversation from an entirely new base and you aren't helping with this attitude.

If I may intervene here, you say mempool empty? That’s success-retail adoption requires low fees (0.1 sat/vB = $0.0005 tx). LN processed $2.3B in Aug 2025 (Wallet of Satoshi data)-show me one core dev calling it "unusable." Fedimint ≠ LN. Your "facts" are recycled FUD from 2017. You oppose a hard fork with bigger blocks as well. Run a node, or are you shilling for ETH?

[melinoe]

I haven figured out how to use the Lightning Network yet....

I think this is not a thread for you then.

Check out what's needed on your side, for example, such threads in the appropriate section.

[alani123]

show me one core dev calling it "unusable."

How about Antoine Riard as I wrote above?

LN processed $2.3B in Aug 2025 (Wallet of Satoshi data)

That's the waste of resources I'm talking about.
It's a gross design flaw by how LN works. More funds sitting there doesn't mean that someone is able to transact $2.3B.
Instead you'd have to split your funds to however much each channel has until you exhaust it.

Contrary to bitcoin, the more decentralized LN is, the harder it becomes to use.

[hero_the_bossman]

show me one core dev calling it "unusable."

How about Antoine Riard as I wrote above?

LN processed $2.3B in Aug 2025 (Wallet of Satoshi data)

That's the waste of resources I'm talking about.
It's a gross design flaw by how LN works. More funds sitting there doesn't mean that someone is able to transact $2.3B.
Instead you'd have to split your funds to however much each channel has until you exhaust it.

Contrary to bitcoin, the more decentralized LN is, the harder it becomes to use.

IMO, LN was never designed to be a perfect mirror of the on-chain settlement, so to speak, but rather a scaling layer, with its own limits and pros and cons.

[Patikno]

With scaling solutions like Lightning maturing post-2024 halving, we’re seeing Bitcoin’s ecosystem expand beyond speculation into practical use cases—think coffee payments, cross-border tips, or even IoT device micropayments. But mainstream adoption still lags and is falling behind.

Have you started using BTC for small daily transactions via Layer 2? What’s the biggest hurdle: UX friction, merchant adoption, or trust in stability?

Let’s discuss real-world wins ( or fails)!

For now, I can't use it in the real world, In my country there is no permit for using Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency for payment. If it ever becomes possible, I will be one of the first to do so for my real-world business, as I happen to own a small company here. Furthermore, I feel like several other countries are experiencing the same situation as mine, so it is an opportunity we can all look at and capitalize on. Essentially, I feel like Bitcoin still has a huge potential for widespread adoption worldwide, so we should embrace it at this early stage, so if all of that has been realized, we can relax and enjoy the glory of Bitcoin at that time, and we will even be able to use Bitcoin freely for any payment we want.

[henry_of_skalitz]

With scaling solutions like Lightning maturing post-2024 halving, we’re seeing Bitcoin’s ecosystem expand beyond speculation into practical use cases—think coffee payments, cross-border tips, or even IoT device micropayments. But mainstream adoption still lags and is falling behind.

Have you started using BTC for small daily transactions via Layer 2? What’s the biggest hurdle: UX friction, merchant adoption, or trust in stability?

Let’s discuss real-world wins ( or fails)!

For now, I can't use it in the real world, In my country there is no permit for using Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency for payment. If it ever becomes possible, I will be one of the first to do so for my real-world business, as I happen to own a small company here. Furthermore, I feel like several other countries are experiencing the same situation as mine, so it is an opportunity we can all look at and capitalize on. Essentially, I feel like Bitcoin still has a huge potential for widespread adoption worldwide, so we should embrace it at this early stage, so if all of that has been realized, we can relax and enjoy the glory of Bitcoin at that time, and we will even be able to use Bitcoin freely for any payment we want.

Govs are just too scared to make it happen as of now, maybe sometime later, they will see for how BTC may really help those that are eager to walk along with something as good as it truly is.

[HardFireMiner]

show me one core dev calling it "unusable."

How about Antoine Riard as I wrote above?

LN processed $2.3B in Aug 2025 (Wallet of Satoshi data)

That's the waste of resources I'm talking about.
It's a gross design flaw by how LN works. More funds sitting there doesn't mean that someone is able to transact $2.3B.
Instead you'd have to split your funds to however much each channel has until you exhaust it.

Contrary to bitcoin, the more decentralized LN is, the harder it becomes to use.

Riard paused Fedimint work (not LN! ) to focus on Bitcoin Core - his GitHub says "temporary halt". $2.3B volume = real payments (0.5 sat avg fee), not "idle funds." Liquidity auto-rebalances via circular routes - your "exhausted channels" myth died in 2024. LN’s 17k nodes > ETH’s 3 centralized L2 sequencers. Run a node or admit you’ve never used it, I can't comprehend how someone who used it at least once could still spread FUD.  

[d5000]

Riard's LN criticism is mostly directed at two things:

First the bugs related to the Replacement Cycling Attack, which were the reason for his "retirement", but he later stated that he was working on Core to help fix these issues, as stated here.

And second, that many Lightning service providers try indeed to convert it into a quite centralized system.

However, this is not a criticism of Lightning itself. It's like criticising Bitcoin for the misbehavior of centralized exchanges where BTC are traded, and for some shortcomings of the development process. Lightning itself looks still like a good solution, but of course there will be always tendencies to exploit it for financial gains.

Personally I'm not a Lightning user, although I briefly tested it some years ago. I was considering to set it up again last year due to blockchain congestion, but still haven't found really interesting use cases for it. And the current fees are also not helping. I use BTC (and LTC) to pay for services like web hosting, advertising and domains, and occasionally have paid for goods, even for food But everything was on chain.

In general I agree that LN is not the solution for everything, but it is a fairly good prepaid card replacement for small purchases. I'm still more interested in sidechains and maybe also Ark (which afaik is still in the concept stage) but progress on the really interesting projects (not the typical "L2" which isn't much more than wBTC or Liquid) is slow. Threshold's tBTC (not to be confused with Testnet BTC of course) seems for now the most interesting project to watch.

[alani123]

When SegWit was about to be implemented there was a big argument about how much of a potential bandwidth and storage increase current infrastructure could support.

The politics of on-chain scaling need a bit of context for explaining because at the time the largest bulk of bitcoin mining equipment was running from China. And China still had plenty of connectivity issues at the time.

But ever since there has been rapid improvement in terms of high speed bandwidth penetration, and China is also a pioneering country in terms of 5G coverage. Moreover bitcoin mining has largely moved to the US now for various reasons. But even for China, lack of bandwidth would no longer be a problem.

Remember, this is the reason we got 2MB SegWit instead of 4!

As of on-chain storage, pruning is an accepted form of running bitcoin now. But even for storing a full chain of a few TBs, memory prices and reliability have improved a lot over the last few years. We could easily handle an increase in block size now. The technology is here.

Some might say that an increase in block size could lead to various parties exploiting this space, similarly to ordinals.

Well... If we're going to be adding changes to bitcoin's base layer that require a soft or hard fork, along with increasing the blocksize, we might as well cut off some slack like the exploits that allowed ordinals in the first place.
Many of the proposed solutions to address bitcoin scaling require forks on the base technology. Might as well just increase the block size, or just do it alongside these changes.

In my view though, if any scaling tech needs a fork to be usable, it mostly makes sense to just increase the blocksize and see if we really need further scaling along with that, before more radical changes on the bitcoin stack.