Bitcoin Religion Clinic #47: Lightning is not Bitcoin

[legiteum]

Lighting (and any other L2) is not Bitcoin.

Bitcoin transactions are final, and they are distributed (decentralized), secured by Bitcoin's proof-of-work consensus protocol. The entire philosophy around Bitcoin is that it is a fully trustless network that can survive 51% attacks, which is the reason it exists in the first place.

Many people love this protocol so much that they create a veritable religion around the protocol, and viciously attack heterodox architectures like proof-of-stake because they are not decentralized like Bitcoin is. I don't subscribe to this religion personally, but Bitcoin "maxis" or "decentralization maxis" do--or at least say they do.

That's why it's so... surprising? for me to see some Bitcoin maxis diminishing their religion by conflating a more centralized system like Lightning with Bitcoin, to the point where they (weirdly) say it's the literally same thing.

Although this sounds strange, I understand where it's coming from. The Bitcoin religion, like a lot of religions, doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny: it requires faith if you think about it too hard.

In particular, any honest rational person who understood computer architecture would conclude that Bitcoin will never ever be able to handle the world's daily transactions, and that Bitcoin is only practical as an investment instrument like gold or stocks etc.

Many Bitcoin religious hard-cores are fine with this state of things.

However, if you think about it too hard, and try to compare one aspect of the religion with another, you'll find logical contradictions (same as what happens if you read the Bible cover-to-cover  ).

In this case, the two aspects of the religion are:

1. "Bitcoin is the ultimate currency for the human race that will eventually be the only way humans trade numerically-delineated value. This is why we all must have faith in Bitcoin and Bitcoin alone".

2. "Bitcoin is a trustless, proof-of-work architecture that does not require users to trust any actual person, group or company, nor any single participant on the network".

These two aspects of the religion are in conflict with each other because Bitcoin's decentralization and proof-of-work architecture make it impossible to scale to even a tiny fraction of the needs of the world's daily transactions. The architecture involves a direct logical trade-off between the decentralization religion and performance/scalability: the more decentralized, the slower and less scalable the network. This is an architectural absolute, and Bitcoin's 15 year history of it actually getting slower and not faster (while the rest of the computing world got ~1000x faster) empirically demonstrates this.

Hence #1 above is never going to happen because of #2, or if it does happen, it will only be because #2 has been negated. In other words, Bitcoin could be changed to be able to scale to all of the world's daily transactions, but the "decentralization" aspect of the religion would be toast.

The only alternative to this is to invoke faith that Bitcoin will somehow, someday, be the only way humans transact with each other. Christians believe in the Second Coming, and are patient in their waiting for it--the invoke faith and leave it at that. True-believing Bitcoin hard-cores need to do the same with Bitcoin world domination, or, perhaps, not take their religion quite so literally.

[Alvin_talk]

Lighting (and any other L2) is not Bitcoin.

I believe you are just deceiving yourself since lighting transactions make use of bitcoin protocols.

Many people love this protocol so much that they create a veritable religion around the protocol, and viciously attack heterodox architectures like proof-of-stake because they are not decentralized like Bitcoin is. I don't subscribe to this religion personally, but Bitcoin "maxis" or "decentralization maxis" do--or at least say they do.

If you are not among the many lovers, then I will say you don't belong here because majority of users here hate centralised systems because it is a failed system. The criticism in connection to proof of stake is not necessarily religious rather it is because of its security flaws so let that sink.

In particular, any honest rational person who understood computer architecture would conclude that Bitcoin will never ever be able to handle the world's daily transactions, and that Bitcoin is only practical as an investment instrument like gold or stocks etc.

It is not meant for everyone, especially doubters like you. It is for those who value in self custody, even if it doesn't achieve the status of everyday money atleast it can still succeed as a self-sovereign monetary system for those of us who believe in self custody and privacy, so FUCK OFF!

[legiteum]

[Emotional, expletive-laced rant deleted]

Well then. Like I said, lots of folks approach Bitcoin with a... religious fervor, don't they?   .

[OsaiEmma]

~snip

What you're saying makes sense, but going back to centralization is going back to the problem you intend to solve just to solve another thing you think is a problem.

Satoshi created this tech having in mind to solve centralization (I don't need to go into details on this, we all know the story). Maybe it isn't ideal for handling the whole world's daily transaction volume, but it is ideal for having a self-custodial decentralized financial system which most Bitcoiners want.

You speak of decentralization as if it is a bug, but it isn't; it's actually the main feature of the technology. So what you're doing right now is actually criticizing the idea that birthed cryptocurrency as a whole.

[legiteum]

What you're saying makes sense, but going back to centralization is going back to the problem you intend to solve just to solve another thing you think is a problem.

Satoshi created this tech having in mind to solve centralization (I don't need to go into details on this, we all know the story). Maybe it isn't ideal for handling the whole world's daily transaction volume, but it is ideal for having a self-custodial decentralized financial system which most Bitcoiners want.

Yes, and I mentioned that in the OP: most Bitcoiners are perfectly fine with Bitcoin's role exclusively as an investment instrument. (And clearly almost all actual Bitcoin investors feel this way).

My only point was that there seems to be a faction that is not satisfied with this, and think that Bitcoin must take over everything in order for it to stay relevant. And in their intense religious fervor, they... say crazy things which detract from Bitcoin's core message.

You speak of decentralization as if it is a bug, but it isn't; it's actually the main feature of the technology. So what you're doing right now is actually criticizing the idea that birthed cryptocurrency as a whole.

The OP is doing the opposite: Lightning is a more centralized technology and thus to call Lightning and Bitcoin the same thing, you are basically turning Bitcoin into a centralized technology. In other words, killing the entire point of Bitcoin (in order to "save" it in their minds).

Yes, decentralization is an architectural tradeoff, but it's a tradeoff that Bitcoin made quite intentionally, and I daresay proudly...

[BlackHatCoiner]

Imagine writing a 10-paragraph sermon just to announce to the forum that you don't understand layered scaling. Do you also write long essays crying that HTTP isn't TCP/IP?

Keep holding that fiat while you lecture us on "computer architecture". We really value your input.

[legiteum]

Imagine writing a 10-paragraph sermon just to announce to the forum that you don't understand layered scaling. Do you also write long essays crying that HTTP isn't TCP/IP?

Keep holding that fiat while you lecture us on "computer architecture". We really value your input.

(Imagine your religious beliefs clouding your vision so thoroughly that you don't even read, and instead just lash out at the sender because you've detected they offend your religion and belong to the wrong tribe or something--and the irony being that the skipped-over words actually defend your tribe's religion...).

Anyhow, so far two detracting posts here and one positive, whereas the two detractors haven't offered up any sort of rational argument at all.

Status report: Lightning is still not Bitcoin.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

In all the time I’ve been involved in this, I haven’t used LN, nor do I intend to. The main problem I see with it is having to open channels with every person or merchant you’re going to pay, and if you don’t want to do that, you have to use a centralised solution (as a fellow member of the local forum told me). But the main thing is that there are hardly any places where I can actually buy things with Bitcoin; the few things I can buy directly with Bitcoin can wait 10 minutes for the transaction to be confirmed – it’s not as if I can pay at a café whilst there are people waiting behind me in the queue and it has to be instant.

As for whether or not it’s Bitcoin, I’m not going to get too involved in that, but certainly, if you opt for a centralised solution, it doesn’t seem to be in keeping with the original spirit.

[X-ray]

Lightning is L2, you can call it names or anything you want since it's an L2 but the Bitcoin you pass back and forth is real Bitcoin and it is the only important thing that matters.

Simply put it's just another solution for people who got burdened with the fee even though Bitcoin's current fee is as cheap as it can be.

If you're so annoyed with Lightning feel free to send your Bitcoin directly, there is no stopping you.

Always feels good having freedom to choose between the two.

[legiteum]

Lightning is L2, you can call it names or anything you want since it's an L2 but the Bitcoin you pass back and forth is real Bitcoin and it is the only important thing that matters.

Great. You can pass Bitcoin back and forth using CoinBase, Binance, or Robinhood, or any of the ETFs, and with thousands of other products that trade Bitcoin for you on your behalf.

But none of these things are Bitcoin.

If you're so annoyed with Lightning feel free to send your Bitcoin directly, there is no stopping you.

I'm not "annoyed" with Lightning (although like some others here, I don't see any point to it when there are far better products out there), I just object to people watering down the Bitcoin religion by saying Bitcoin is also Lightning and a other L2s. L2s are not Bitcoin, they don't have the same characteristics as Bitcoin, including the most important characteristics that Bitcoin "maxis" hold dear.

Always feels good having freedom to choose between the two.

Absolutely. You can use Lightning or Bitcoin. Pick one of these entirely different products that each come with their own tradeoffs.

[OsaiEmma]

~snip

The OP is doing the opposite: Lightning is a more centralized technology and thus to call Lightning and Bitcoin the same thing, you are basically turning Bitcoin into a centralized technology. In other words, killing the entire point of Bitcoin (in order to "save" it in their minds).

Yes, decentralization is an architectural tradeoff, but it's a tradeoff that Bitcoin made quite intentionally, and I daresay proudly...

Oops! My bad. I was too busy trying to counter the criticism you made of bitcoin in your OP that I forgot the main topic.

Comparing lightning network and Bitcoin is like comparing electrum wallet and Bitcoin. Now, don't get me wrong thinking I'm comparing lightning network to a wallet, nope! But I'm comparing it to an underlying feature which is, a means of carrying out transactions in the Bitcoin network.

Lightning network is just a way of transacting with Bitcoin albeit in a much faster route. But Bitcoin (the UTXO record/coin itself) and its network is the main network where the lightning network ends its trail.

It differs from Bitcoin wallets in its architecture which is a bit centralized, but its main function is the same. Personally I won't go into the debate of saying it is Bitcoin or it isn't; its just a Bitcoin L2 meant to make transactions in Bitcoin faster. It's not there to say "we are one and the same", neither is it there to say "we are different". It is just a tool assisting users in making fast transactions in the network because at the end of the day, it's still using Bitcoin (the native coin), and the mainnet still governs it.

[legiteum]

~snip

The OP is doing the opposite: Lightning is a more centralized technology and thus to call Lightning and Bitcoin the same thing, you are basically turning Bitcoin into a centralized technology. In other words, killing the entire point of Bitcoin (in order to "save" it in their minds).

Yes, decentralization is an architectural tradeoff, but it's a tradeoff that Bitcoin made quite intentionally, and I daresay proudly...

Oops! My bad. I was too busy trying to counter the criticism you made of bitcoin in your OP that I forgot the main topic.

The OP made a criticism of Bitcoin? Where?

It differs from Bitcoin wallets in its architecture which is a bit centralized, but its main function is the same.

I wouldn't call Lightning a type of "wallet": wallets are a storage mechanism for somebody's personal possessions.

Lightning on the other hand is a transaction batching mechanism that gathers many transactions and then makes (presumably fewer) transactions on another transaction mechanism i.e. the Bitcoin chain, and/or defers transactions in order to provide faster user-observed latency. Lots of things do this including the Bitcoin L2, ETFs, apps like CoinBase/Binance/Robinhood and many others.

[OsaiEmma]

The OP made a criticism of Bitcoin? Where?

Here.

~snip
Bitcoin's decentralization and proof-of-work architecture make it impossible to scale to even a tiny fraction of the needs of the world's daily transactions. The architecture involves a direct logical trade-off between the decentralization religion and performance/scalability: the more decentralized, the slower and less scalable the network. This is an architectural absolute, and Bitcoin's 15 year history of it actually getting slower and not faster (while the rest of the computing world got ~1000x faster) empirically demonstrates this.

To me, this is a criticism. Yes! You probably are right, but there is a reason why it is that way and that's what I was trying to explain in my reply.

I wouldn't call Lightning a type of "wallet": wallets are a storage mechanism for somebody's personal possessions.

Lightning on the other hand is a transaction batching mechanism that gathers many transactions and then makes (presumably fewer) transactions on another transaction mechanism i.e. the Bitcoin chain, and/or defers transactions in order to provide faster user-observed latency. Lots of things do this including the Bitcoin L2, ETFs, apps like CoinBase/Binance/Robinhood and many others.

You're right, and I never called it a wallet; I made that distinction very clear here.

~snip

Now, don't get me wrong thinking I'm comparing lightning network to a wallet, nope! But I'm comparing it to an underlying feature which is, a means of carrying out transactions in the Bitcoin network.

Lots of things do this including the Bitcoin L2, ETFs, apps like CoinBase/Binance/Robinhood and many others.

You're right here, but there are differences. Some L2s either have their separate miners or separate coin (wrapped Bitcoin), and they are all a side chain which means they're not governed by the Bitcoin network rules. Same with ETFs and CExs; I mean, they're not even comparable in any way with lightning except for being a means of transacting in the Blockchain and they don't even provide any valuable utility in that regard instead, they make you lose custody of your Bitcoin; whereas, the lightning network doesn't make you lose custody.

The Lightning network is not a side chain, it's not a custodial system, it doesn't use a different coin or wrapped Bitcoin, it is governed by Bitcoin protocol/network/rules. These are the major differences and why it is incomparable to the alternative and the plus side is, it still provides fast transaction while transacting on the Bitcoin network.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way calling lightning network Bitcoin or the Bitcoin network; what I'm saying is, Lightning network is designed in such a way that it is deeply integrated into Bitcoin network so as to make transactions faster; it is integrated in such a way that it looks like an accessory in the network rather than something completely different.

[348Judah]

Lighting (and any other L2) is not Bitcoin.

I don't know when some are spreading false information about litghning network not being part of Bitcoin.

We should critically look at the conditions that comes with the lightning network protocols and how everything is being aligned together with bitcoin network, calling it an off-chain transaction does not take it outside the context of Bitcoin network and this is where many are getting it wrong already that the assume for what they don't know.

[Rustam Meraj]

As per my opinion, people who consider this “the scaling issue that will logically kill Blockchains” had not understood that layer two networks are built to solve this very problem, high speed without clutter of decentralized ledger. Off chain infrastructure makes conflicting assumptions about security, and secondary chains can never be equal to the base layer. Desiring world of centralized settlement layer with blockchain speed is misunderstanding of server client give and take, much less idea of complete decentralization.

[legiteum]

To me, this is a criticism. Yes! You probably are right, but there is a reason why it is that way and that's what I was trying to explain in my reply.

Yes, and again I agree: Bitcoin made an architectural tradeoff for decentralization, and in doing so traded away transaction latency and scalability. Lots of very good and useful things in the world have tradeoffs--in fact most do.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way calling lightning network Bitcoin or the Bitcoin network; what I'm saying is, Lightning network is designed in such a way that it is deeply integrated into Bitcoin network so as to make transactions faster; it is integrated in such a way that it looks like an accessory in the network rather than something completely different.

Bitcoin is a decentralized, trustless network that is made possible by a proof-of-work consensus protocol. That is what the "Bitcoin religion" is religious about. Insofar as you are "orthodox' in this religion, you necessarily deride less decentralized approaches such as cryptos with the proof-of-stake architecture. Why? Because proof-of-stake requires trusting a centralized entity of some kind, e.g. the network's largest stakeholders.

So Bitcoin religious hardcores deride Ether, Solana, Hedera, and most other digital currencies because they are not decentralized in their view. That's what sets Bitcoin apart from them, they say.

Now look that happens if you say that Lightning (and other L2s) are "part of Bitcoin": you completely destroy that religion. L2s are necessarily centralized because you absolutely must trust systems that are not trustless and decentralized like Bitcoin is.

As per my opinion, people who consider this “the scaling issue that will logically kill Blockchains” had not understood that layer two networks are built to solve this very problem, high speed without clutter of decentralized ledger. Off chain infrastructure makes conflicting assumptions about security, and secondary chains can never be equal to the base layer. Desiring world of centralized settlement layer with blockchain speed is misunderstanding of server client give and take, much less idea of complete decentralization.

Totally agree. Well put. 

[lionheart78]

Lighting (and any other L2) is not Bitcoin.

I don't know when some are spreading false information about litghning network not being part of Bitcoin.

If we are talking about whether it is part of the Bitcoin protocol or consensus, then I think it is not.  This protocol or consensus protocol is what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin. What you are talking about is the Bitcoin ecosystem.  Not because it requires Bitcoin or runs on Bitcoin makes it part of Bitcoin, but part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

We should critically look at the conditions that comes with the lightning network protocols and how everything is being aligned together with bitcoin network, calling it an off-chain transaction does not take it outside the context of Bitcoin network and this is where many are getting it wrong already that the assume for what they don't know.

First, we should know whether this off-chain is part of the Bitcoin blockchain. And also can ask if that off-chain is part of the Bitcoin network.  I believe if we are talking strictly on  Bitcoin consensus protocol, they are not part of Bitcoin blockchain or Bitcoin network, but I believe it can be considered as part of the broader Bitcoin ecosystem. But the thing is, Bitcoin is not a Bitcoin ecosystem.

[legiteum]

If we are talking about whether it is part of the Bitcoin protocol or consensus, then I think it is not [Bitcoin].  This protocol or consensus protocol is what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin. What you are talking about is the Bitcoin ecosystem.  Not because it requires Bitcoin or runs on Bitcoin makes it part of Bitcoin, but part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Yes, but also note that, by that logic, all kinds of things can be considered "part of the Bitcoin ecosystem", including wallets, exchanges, brokers (CoinBase, Binance, etc.), apps (Robinhood, etc.), the ETFs, and lots of other things.

And note that those who adhere to the Bitcoin religion consider all of those things "blasphemy" since they basically kill the core vision of Bitcoin. "Not your keys, not your coins", they will say. As soon as you add anything to a an on-chain Bitcoin transaction between two self-custody wallets, you are not gaining Bitcoin's unique features, you are just using another traditional centralized system.

Again, just to emphasize, I personally don't have a problem with using Bitcoin this way (probably about 95% of people use Bitcoin this way), but you don't get to pretend that such an activity is any different than using a bank with USD or some other investment.

This is the tradeoff illuminated in the OP, which is that you must, logically, pick either:

1. The Bitcoin Religion of a trustless, decentralized network secured by the proof-of-work consensus protocol.

-or-

2. The pragmatism of realizing that BTC is just a meme investment instrument that has one purpose in life, i.e. "Number Go Up".

I'm firmly in bucket #2, which is why I don't have any philosophical problems with Lightning, or any L2, or brokers, or CoinBase, or ETFs, or other PoS-based cryptos or other digital currencies. But being against those on religious grounds and yet not against Lightning is dishonest.

[BitBrainers]

Agree, Lightning is not Bitcoin. The distinction matters more than people admit.
The clearest proof is El Salvador. The country made Bitcoin legal tender, built Lightning infrastructure, and what did most people actually use? Chivo, a custodial wallet run by the government. Not your keys, not your coins. The very thing Bitcoin exists to prevent. Adoption numbers collapsed after the $30 signup bonus ran out.
Lightning in theory is elegant. Lightning in practice keeps pushing users toward custodial solutions because self-custodial Lightning is genuinely hard to use. The moment you go custodial you are not using Bitcoin, you are using a company's IOU backed by Bitcoin. That is a meaningful difference and it is the one the "Lightning is Bitcoin" crowd consistently glosses over.