Does the Lightning Network still hold a future?

[danieldavidd]

Yes lightning  network has structure but that's when bitcoin doesn't centralized in the nearest future and it based on competitions of payments that will done. That also guarantees and gives a high breed lightning network.

[Patikno]

The controversial L2 scaling solution has been years in the making, yet it has suffered from lack of mainstream adoption. At the time of this writing, there are many merchants and/or services that still don't support LN payments. For something that promises ultra-low fees and blazing-fast transaction speeds, LN should've been accepted almost everywhere by now. Imagine going to your favorite coffee shop or restaurant and paying with the LN like a breeze.

While the LN does have its benefits, it isn't the perfect solution. There are many flaws that need to be addressed. Especially in terms of UX, and high centralization risks.

What do you think? Is there still a future for the LN? Or is it game over? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I don't really know about the state of Lightning Network (LN) adoption in other countries, but I believe nations that support Bitcoin payments still need it, especially given how useful it is for micro-transactions. So, I think the real issue is the level of adoption elsewhere; if Bitcoin adoption becomes more widespread, LN usage will likely increase, leading to more nodes supporting the network. Cmiiw.

In my opinion, if my country (Indonesia) were to authorize the use of Bitcoin for transactions, then I am certain LN would see widespread adoption. Right now, it is mostly just been a topic of discussion, but I hope it eventually becomes a reality here, sooner or later. After all, I am convinced there are still plenty of people who need Bitcoin for both micro, and macro transactions.

[Agbamoni]

What do you think? Is there still a future for the LN? Or is it game over? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

When I joined the forum in 2023, Lightning Network was the most discussed topic at that time. Most members, especially NotATether, would share opinion like it was as if LN were a solution to fast payments. I saw the excitement, but not until years passed by did the energy go down. Honestly, I dont see a future for LN anytime soon.

Out of 100%, become holders aproximately 65% are long-term holders, excluding traders. Correct me if im wrong. However, what Im trying to say is that people see Bitcoin as a valuable asset. It will be difficult to see people use Bitcoin for everyday transactions, covering fees, so long as volatility still exists.

[Agbe]

What do you think? Is there still a future for the LN? Or is it game over? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Until developers make it simple for user to use if not for now people prefer using onchain network than the Lightening network. The data processing process is combersome. What I mean is that it is not the way we use onchain network. If lightening network was easy to use, aha! All of us are using it but it isn't.

[Synchronice]

The controversial L2 scaling solution has been years in the making, yet it has suffered from lack of mainstream adoption. At the time of this writing, there are many merchants and/or services that still don't support LN payments. For something that promises ultra-low fees and blazing-fast transaction speeds, LN should've been accepted almost everywhere by now. Imagine going to your favorite coffee shop or restaurant and paying with the LN like a breeze.

While the LN does have its benefits, it isn't the perfect solution. There are many flaws that need to be addressed. Especially in terms of UX, and high centralization risks.

What do you think? Is there still a future for the LN? Or is it game over? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Bitcoin on-chain transactions are simpler than Lightning Network transactions because when it comes to on-chain, you simply paste an address, choose an amount and transaction fee and click on send. In case of Lightning Network, there are channels, inbound liquidity and so on. It's good to use once you set up the wallet.

The biggest problem is user experience. Apple Pay, Google Pay and similar payment services have invested millions, if not billions of dollars into creating the best user experience. Lightning Network competes against these payment services. I can pay extremely easily with Apple Pay but is the same possible with LN?

[YOSHIE]

What do you think? Is there still a future for the LN? Or is it game over? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

You can't look at the adoption of the Lightning Network, you have to look at the LN network in micropayments and how the Lightning Network reduces the load on the main blockchain, Believe it or not, LN is currently still a solution for making Bitcoin transactions on a global scale, LN is very bright for the future.

With the presence of the Lightning Network, you can make transactions instantly and also known as LN with very cheap fees, compared to when you use the Bitcoin main network, imagine with the presence of LN Bitcoin users can do small things like when you want to buy coffee, for that reason the Lightning Network in the future will have extraordinary brightness.

[d5000]

I think the probability is high that Lightning won't be the general purpose instant payment tool it was described in the euphoria phase in 2017/18 when it launched.

The current stagnation could be explained by the low fees, but I don't think that is the reason, because it struggled to grow also in 2023 and 2024 when fees were high during the Ordinals craze. According to BitcoinVisuals, Lightning channels / nodes stats were even declining during that phase. It is possible that it was simply too expensive most of the time to "just try it out", and in addition some may have simply sold their LN balance when the price started to grow.

For now I have more hopes about Ark and sidechains that they could solve the scaling problem more efficiently.

But Lightning has also some advantages both compared to Ark (it is independent of a "provider", even if Ark providers are trustless) and sidechains (where you have additional risk due to an alternative consensus system). I think it has a future as a "prepaid card" type bundling option. For example, if you get your salary with Bitcoin, you could transfer a part of it each month to LN, and then use it for payments and so you only have to use the fee once. It is also useful to transfer BTC from exchange to exchange, but that is more a feature for heavy traders.

Of course all that depends on Bitcoin becoming more popular for payments again. The current relatively high number of transactions in the last months may be hinting at that (it seems to be not all Runes and similar stuff), but it needs to be confirmed.

Ideally we should have a wallet that could integrate every Bitcoin L2 solution:

- on-chain payment: for large transactions like getting your salary, or international txes.
- Lightning: as a prepaid card for small purchases.
- Ark: for people who only hold relatively small amounts but transact often, better alternative to CEX holding.
- Sidechains / rollups / tBTC-style decentralized bridges: similar to Ark; but also useful for people who need advanced DeFi capabilities as they often integrate EVM or similar advanced scripting / smart contracting.

If this setup was used by most Bitcoiners then we could easily have 10-20 times more transaction capacity, and that should be enough for the next 10 years.

[Dogedegen]

I think the probability is high that Lightning won't be the general purpose instant payment tool it was described in the euphoria phase in 2017/18 when it launched.

The current stagnation could be explained by the low fees, but I don't think that is the reason, because it struggled to grow also in 2023 and 2024 when fees were high during the Ordinals craze. According to BitcoinVisuals, Lightning channels / nodes stats were even declining during that phase. It is possible that it was simply too expensive most of the time to "just try it out", and in addition some may have simply sold their LN balance when the price started to grow.

The problem with things like that is that it is based on assumptions that are not really true. Usually people say look lightning is growing because the number of channels or nodes is increasing, but that is just an assumption that does not come with data. We have no idea about the true number of transactions that are being made with LN. It could very well be much more than it was in the peak number of channels. If I look back a few years, I could not find almost any merchant that had LN but these days you can see it a bit more often if you look closely enough.

For now I have more hopes about Ark and sidechains that they could solve the scaling problem more efficiently.

But Lightning has also some advantages both compared to Ark (it is independent of a "provider", even if Ark providers are trustless) and sidechains (where you have additional risk due to an alternative consensus system). I think it has a future as a "prepaid card" type bundling option. For example, if you get your salary with Bitcoin, you could transfer a part of it each month to LN, and then use it for payments and so you only have to use the fee once. It is also useful to transfer BTC from exchange to exchange, but that is more a feature for heavy traders.

For people that like to do things the custodial way, platforms could already provide them with LN enabled wallets. You would not need to make extra transfers if your wallet or your exchange already lets you pay LN stuff. Once someone starts using LN they fall in love with it quickly. I am not saying that custodial is the right way to go, but this is for users that use custodial solutions anyway so it does not harm them at all.

[Porfirii]

-snip-

What do you think? Is there still a future for the LN? Or is it game over? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

The truth is that the fact LN has not been more successful to date is something that I have not understood for a long time. In the past, it was said that using this solution was complicated, I imagine that it referred to the issue of creating invoices, and that this was a significant barrier for the average user, but for years we have had easy-to-use solutions, multiple Apps such as Muun, WoS, etc. that are really intuitive to use. So on that side, I don't think UX is a big real problem.

As for the risks of centralisation, it is as simple as depositing in them the minimum necessary for small payments, amounts that even if lost would not be a big problem, which would be a similar approach as with CEX but without the KYC. And CEX are very successful, so I don't think that's the problem either.

Could it be that in reality if these solutions have not become mainstream it will be due to a lack of knowledge and to the prejudices, due in turn to the lack of sufficient publicity?

[legiteum]

If this setup was used by most Bitcoiners then we could easily have 10-20 times more transaction capacity, and that should be enough for the next 10 years.

Capacity for what? Surely you don't mean the capacity required for mainstream daily payments. Credit card transactions alone can peak over 3 billion per day, and that doesn't include apps and other forms of payment that can be even more. China's Alipay hit 500k transactions per second during one peak period.

And then don't forget 99th percentile and worst-case latency, which is critical for any realistic solution. Credit cards aren't great in this regard (merchants constantly complain about it because it makes them lose customers), but a realistic solution should be sub-five-seconds 99th percentile latency, and the worst case (WCL) needs to be under ~20 seconds. (And to truly get people to switch technologies you'd better be way better than credit cards e.g. millisecond-level settlement time and <100ms WCL).

And of course any future you plan for should be multiplying credit cards by about 10 since a worldwide transaction system that had zero fees and millisecond-level clearance time would massively expand the number of payments human beings made on a daily basis.

Bitcoin currently handles an infinitesimal amount of the world's transactions with an unthinkable set of latency numbers for mainstream use. It will take a lot more than just adding an order of magnitude, it will require 1,000 to 10,000 times the current capacity and .001% of the currency average latency and it would need to do so consistently.

This is the way you need to start thinking if your vision is replacing all of the world's value transactions between entities.

(And as you can tell, this is how I personally think every single day ).

[d5000]

Usually people say look lightning is growing because the number of channels or nodes is increasing, but that is just an assumption that does not come with data. We have no idea about the true number of transactions that are being made with LN.

But channels and nodes should be a good way to measure the actual user base. Of course, it is always possible that the decline has other reasons, maybe some people who speculated that LN could become an interesting source of income could have closed their channels while "true end users" are actually increasing. But this is also speculative, and I think we can deduct from stagnating/declining node stats that at least it hasn't been exploding.

For people that like to do things the custodial way, platforms could already provide them with LN enabled wallets.

This would only make sense regarding interoperability, i.e. you could pay more services via Lightning than potentially with something like Coinbase Pay. But regarding decentralization and trustlessness it would not really make a difference if you hold your coins on a custodial wallet and then pay with LN.

[henmark]

What do you think? Is there still a future for the LN? Or is it game over? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Until developers make it simple for user to use if not for now people prefer using onchain network than the Lightening network. The data processing process is combersome. What I mean is that it is not the way we use onchain network. If lightening network was easy to use, aha! All of us are using it but it isn't.

It is not as difficult as people think it is. The only downside is that miners would not make that much money while trying to have even higher security. Faster and quicker and cheaper means that we are dealing with something at a pace that may not be easy to just make sure it's secure and nothing wrong is going on; think of it this way: is it easier to chase a criminal who is in a lambo, or on a donkey?

Right now it's expensive and slow, so miners with this much hash get to catch anything wrong and provide us very good security most of the time, but if we go to LN, then things will be far faster, and that will put a risk on us. This is why LN is not done yet, because it is not as secure as what we have right now, and people will not prefer it until it is as secure as what we have today. Why wouldn't people prefer to spend less money and get their money quicker? Of course, we would all prefer that, but if it is not as secure, then why would we risk anything for it?

[dansus021]

Does the Lightning Network still hold a future? In my opinion Lightning Network is still hold in the future I dont remember but I do believe somewhere on this forum and YouTube there is a merchant who accepts Bitcoin and use Lightning Network, because in my opinion this is the fastest way to do use Bitcoin for daily transactions.

Binance, OKX, and bitfinex seems agree because they already accept Lightning Network deposits and I hope there will be another L2 that succeeds like Layer 2 on ETH, if we take a look at the ETH, Arbitrum Optimism can bring Billion of dollar into their chain and I hope bitcoin can do that

[Razmirraz]

Does the Lightning Network still hold a future? In my opinion Lightning Network is still hold in the future I dont remember but I do believe somewhere on this forum and YouTube there is a merchant who accepts Bitcoin and use Lightning Network, because in my opinion this is the fastest way to do use Bitcoin for daily transactions.

Binance, OKX, and bitfinex seems agree because they already accept Lightning Network deposits and I hope there will be another L2 that succeeds like Layer 2 on ETH, if we take a look at the ETH, Arbitrum Optimism can bring Billion of dollar into their chain and I hope bitcoin can do that

Yes, the Lightning Network still has a bright future and continues to evolve as the default payment solution for Bitcoin, much like Visa is for fiat currency. Support from major exchanges like Binance, OKX, and Bitfinex demonstrates its real-world utility in reducing queues and on-chain transaction costs. It proves that demand for it still exists. The hope that LN would be like Arbitrum or Optimism capable of attracting billions of dollars into their chains "might" not materialize.

The reason I make that assumption is that ETH Layer 2 solutions were built for DeFi, NFTs, and dApps. Their TVL is high because people lock up funds for farming. In contrast, the LN was designed for payments. Its purpose isn't to "lock up billions of dollars," but rather to open a channel, make a payment, and then close it. The money keeps circulating rather than sitting idle. The success metric LN is not TVL, but rather the number of channels, capacity, and daily transaction volume.

If I’m not mistaken, the reason you remain very optimistic about LN future is that LN has already been adopted by several major CEX. Compared to three years ago, there are now two major changes "CEX are opening the door" and "wallets are making it easy." So, the Lightning Network has moved past the experimental stage. It has now entered the phase of being used for everyday payments.

[legiteum]

Yes, the Lightning Network still has a bright future and continues to evolve as the default payment solution for Bitcoin, much like Visa is for fiat currency.

[emphasis added]

This illustrates the disconnect on this subject.

If you ask the question, "will LN have a future within the Bitcoin community" the answer can potentially be "yes" (although that's a debate on its own).

If you ask the question, "will LN have a future in the world of mainstream payment methods", the answer is absolutely "no".

When you compare LN to the Bitcoin chain, it can sometimes be compared favorably (although people have argued that point).

When you compare LN to any of the systems running the world's everyday mainstream payments, it looks... ridiculous.

[Obim34]

Does the Lightning Network still hold a future? In my opinion Lightning Network is still hold in the future I dont remember but I do believe somewhere on this forum and YouTube there is a merchant who accepts Bitcoin and use Lightning Network, because in my opinion this is the fastest way to do use Bitcoin for daily transactions.

Despite Lightning being the fastest Bitcoin transaction network, not many people are okay with it, so many are very okay waiting 30-60 minutes for full confirmation to receive their deposits, the fees are also cheap. The future of Lightning Network is not looking bright enough for massive adoption, It will remain in use, but the best it can survive with is a mid-level adoption.

If LN seriously wants to have a future, there needs to be something more, a very good reason why to choose LN over the main network. I'm personally not convinced to stop or move into using LN over Bitcoin Mainnet, there has to be a stronger reason.

[Abiky]

LN could still work. Imo, the hurdles are the underlying UX and lack of enough integrations across the board. If users know the benefits of LN and they know that they can access those benefits directly on any app they're using to send or receive Bitcoin, they can start utilising it. Look at Segwit, most people know the benefits and it's supported on like 90%+ of service providers from wallets to exchanges. But it's not the same as LN.

LN's UX has improved recently. Especially with lightning addresses. It makes sending BTC or satoshis as simple as sending an email. Easy to read, easy to remember. Still, this is not enough. Because you need to know how to open or close a channel, select a routing node, etc.

There are many technical aspects that are somewhat-difficult to learn. It's why many people continue to use on-chain BTC. Hopefully, the L2 scaling solution continues to be funded by the community to help improve UX over the long term. Just my two sats.

[Ucy]

lightning Network is not my ideal kind of scaling solution, even though it's far better option than centralized or privately owned alternatives. It should be one of the many available solutions rather than making it look like it's the only alternative we need.
 By the way, the adoption issue is not limited to LN, it's a general issue in crypto space. I believe it can be solved with independent Bitcoin circular economy rather than trying to penetrate the fiat system to compete with it. The system won't like it at all, and I don't believe it's a good idea to bend to its will. I like how lightning is solving that with Nostr, though alot still need to be done to attract more users and make it a thriving space. It needs to be as safe, easy-to-use, beneficial, useful as possible, and with option for local transactions, including finding local peers.

Finally, an ideal scaling solution should be advanced multi-sidechain modular Bitcoin networks with token pegged to Bitcoin. This is how you can easily bring things like NFTs, DeFi, Dexes, Smart-escrow (or smart-contract), colored coins, etc to Bitcoin.
Hope those with their own agenda or who don't like competition very much don't try to suppress the alternatives

[BABY SHOES]

Does the Lightning Network still hold a future? In my opinion Lightning Network is still hold in the future I dont remember but I do believe somewhere on this forum and YouTube there is a merchant who accepts Bitcoin and use Lightning Network, because in my opinion this is the fastest way to do use Bitcoin for daily transactions.

Binance, OKX, and bitfinex seems agree because they already accept Lightning Network deposits and I hope there will be another L2 that succeeds like Layer 2 on ETH, if we take a look at the ETH, Arbitrum Optimism can bring Billion of dollar into their chain and I hope bitcoin can do that

• https://btcmap.org/apps

The site makes it easy for us to find any store/hotel that accepts Bitcoin LN readings... and most surprised in Indonesia there are still some stores that accept bitcoin payments, I do not know when this was last updated, after just seeing the data is still there until now.

Several global exchanges have accepted bitcoin LN, it's just that our local exchanges still have not accepted it that's the least I know, what I personally know LN is still much less interested.

[Dogedegen]

Usually people say look lightning is growing because the number of channels or nodes is increasing, but that is just an assumption that does not come with data. We have no idea about the true number of transactions that are being made with LN.

But channels and nodes should be a good way to measure the actual user base. Of course, it is always possible that the decline has other reasons, maybe some people who speculated that LN could become an interesting source of income could have closed their channels while "true end users" are actually increasing. But this is also speculative, and I think we can deduct from stagnating/declining node stats that at least it hasn't been exploding.

Actual users but not usage, those are different things! You can estimate the number of users who use these things in non custodial ways, but how can you measure the payment volume from that? I have my channel on a mobile wallet, and I am not actively using it for some periods of time. At other times I will have tens or hundreds of transactions. You can't really say that usage is decreasing because the number of channels is increasing or decreasing, but you could say that it is probable that the number of users has shrunk. I relate to my case because I have had a channel for a long time and have not used it until about last year or so, and since then I have made many transactions with it. Each time some service surprises me by accepting LN I use it for small payments.

For people that like to do things the custodial way, platforms could already provide them with LN enabled wallets.

This would only make sense regarding interoperability, i.e. you could pay more services via Lightning than potentially with something like Coinbase Pay. But regarding decentralization and trustlessness it would not really make a difference if you hold your coins on a custodial wallet and then pay with LN.

That is actually the point that I was trying to make but maybe I did not explain myself very good. If you suggest custodial solutions some irrational maximalists sometimes come to attack and criticize it, but since here we are talking about people who are already using custodial wallets then there is no negative effect from enabling lightning payments on the same custodial wallets. I think that is a good way to onboard people of this kind, so they don't have to install additional wallets or open channels. I would say that most people already use custodial solutions unfortunately, but the upside is that they can be adopted to lightning in ways that are not possible with non custodial solutions.