Topic: Article from Coindesk. Are Bitcoin Developers Losing Faith in Lightning? - page 4. (Read 981 times)

Bitcoin is undeniably interesting. Its shaking up the entire system, offering potential others simply dont have. The skeptics were wrong - this is a force to be reckoned with. Decentralized, streamlined... it brings advantages traditional finance cant even dream of.

Obviously, we've got issues to work through. The price swings, the regulatory questions - nobody's saying this is perfect yet. Every huge technology starts this way. The fact that we're seeing major players adopt it, even countries looking at it seriously, well, that speaks volumes. Could Bitcoin be the everyday currency of tomorrow? The possibility's there, and that's what makes it worth watching.

Another way of looking at it is that people haven't adopted Lightning Network as much as some expected because fees were high and sending on-chain transactions were difficult and costly. After all LN is a second layer which means it requires the first layer to perform smoothly so that people can use it like by opening channels easily.

Reading this article; I would say have opened my eyes to the possible reasons why bitcoin lightening network hasn't really gained as much attention as I've always thought it deserved, I actually over the year, wondered why people, bitcoin investors and traders keep complaining about bitcoin high transaction fees, and how the network has become really slow, but yet, no one is adopting the much hyped lightening network which we all were made to believe that it is an effective solution to the high transaction cost on bitcoin network.

And one question that comes to my mind now is, if actually bitcoin lightening network is a failed project, or likely to be a failure because it's never going to get the much anticipated adoption we all are waiting for, then is exactly is the next thing to hope for concerning the scaling of the bitcoin network? Will the network remain as it is currently for eternity? This I would say will be very risky for the continued existence of bitcoin, and maintaining its top position.

If the lightening network fails, then we as a matter of urgency, need another scaling solution for bitcoin network, else, we might wake up one day and discover bitcoin is continually losing market dominance.

This is why ever since 2017 I've been saying we will always need on-chain scaling alongside everything else we do. This is also why I was a fan of the 2x part of the SegWit2x thing regardless of the other crap that surrounded the proposal.

I've already read issues regarding the Lightning network months ago. Some are too pessimistic about it that they're outright dismissing it already as a solution to scaling. But some others are saying they're simply exaggerating or setting an ideal standard.

For somebody who's just on the sidelines, I don't feel like this is a big deal. This is merely part of the bigger process of development and innovation. The Lightning network is under development. While at it, there must also be other alternatives that are being developed. This is all part of a never ending progress.

There is a quote in the article from a bitcoin maximalist where he tells everyone about the reality of developing his project using Lightning technology. The quote is highlighted in yellow and he said his experience caused him to realize that the design of Lightning is a joke which implies that he had much difficulty on implementing it. This is not the fault of the user or the developers who want to adopt a technology. This is because the technology might not be something similar to the hype. I speculate that Barry Silbert might have noticed this and he might create a new project for scaling bitcoin.

how about stop REKTing attempts and calling them oppositions to bitcoin and telling them to F**k off to an altcoin to test their theory
then you wont see people actually making altcoins to avoid your cult group drama.
even vitalik left trying to develop bitcoin to then do ethereum because of the cultish control core leadership created
even duffield left trying to develop bitcoin to then do darkcoin(dash) because of the cultish control core leadership created


the reason there are so many altcoins since core jumped in is because people do want something different to core but find it less of a headache to deal with core by those thousands of devs making thousands of altcoins.. instead of testing out different idea's on a bitcoin testnet and finding the best features for bitcoin to adopt.. yep even bitcoins testnet is moderated to only facilitate core feature/roadmap code

and secondly. stop then crying that you dont see other reference fullnodes on bitcoin when its cult group like you that dont want to see alternative brands on bitcoin "coz it adds to core god-devs leaders workloads of reviewing other peoples work"

your cults core-centric mindset is the central point of failure!! in soo many ways

thirdly how about you and your group of core god-dev worshipers stop reporting people who want to discuss alternative idea's to cores roadmap, and stop reporting people who also want to highlight core exploits.. then things can actually get discussed and developed on the bitcoin network instead of the whole 'abandon bitcoin and use another network if you dont like cores plan' game you and your ilk prefer to play


and lastly
you now cry that on this forum you see discussion.. hmm.. well it is called a DISCUSSION forum.. literally talk is in the name of the url
this website is not github!!
(and i wont go into the details of githubs moderation policy managed by andrew chow who only wants core-positive discussion on the "bitcoin github" repository)

yes people and even core prefer to discuss idea's and see what is practical/popular first. thats how new projects begin
but you dont, yet again, even want the discussion beginnings to flow. the devs you idolise only want core-positive(ass-kissing) discussion
its become an echo chamber

you try to cut off any scaling discussion by saying that the only option is your silly subnetwork and then you chime in with silly narratives of peoples idea's wont work unless they make their projects huge blocks to cater to "visa/one world currency distopia because thats what mainstream requires" then cry a second time that peoples idea's shouldnt be visa numbers because a hard drive is to costly.. but then you want transactions (one tx) to cost more then a hard drive 'for the good of the network'

you and your cult tribe do absolutely everything to avoid even the discussions of any scaling at all to grow in popularity even when there are thousands of topics wanting scaling, you always chime in trying to quash them by promoting the only future is subnetworks, so yes many people end up making other networks

the proof that people dont get far with core in leadership is the fact people end up making other networks to avoid the core governance program you love and idolise

you dont like even discussion of scaling options, you dont like other brands being on bitcoin network, you dont like people that see failures in core. heck you dont even want people discussing/highlighting/revealing core failures
heck you dont even want people knowing core have control of the network as it harms their control if people start realising it and doing something about it

You know what numbers look worse, though?  The number of people coming up with an alternative that everyone can get behind.  People can talk about what they think devs should or shouldn't do 'til the end of time, but none of that actually has any impact on the situation.  Is anyone in this topic actually going to do anything that might make a difference?  Those numbers are going to be truly minuscule.

Talk is cheap.  And that's all anyone here seems to have.  Hollow, empty, meaningless noise.  No code, no breakthroughs, no plans.  None of us are achieving anything other than idle chit-chat here.  So I'm happy to sit back and watch and see what the devs actually do.  Because pretty much everyone on the sidelines, myself included, are doing absolutely nothing to move development forward. 

when you dig deep into the details
LN was sponsored and funded as a sandbox test network of CBDC, which started as projects of the hyperledger project..
(you can research how blockstream(core) devs were involved in HLP and suddenly idea's of LN came about)
when the HLP sponsorship dried up some gave up. others then  just tried to be mischievous and take sponsorships from other corporate sources to make bitcoin a headache to try to make LN populate in the hope of acting as middlemen fee syphoners on LN(routers/services/balance landlords(credit facilitators))
(the sponsors needed ROI but knew they couldnt charge people middlemen fee's of bitcoiners but could charge middlemen fees on LN)
then you start to see how LN transitioned and how bitcoin became more annoying just to promote LN

LN is not a work in progress. it was flawed from the start. those hoping LN will prosper is like asking a cliffs edge to regrow soil and turn into a beach front hillside instead of a land slide

..
for the niche small use-cases of subnetworks. people need to start from scratch and learn from the mistakes of LN
as for trying to promote that LN is the sole solution everyone needs to migrate over too because scaling bitcoin wont happen until everyone has abandoned bitcoin.. those people should get a job in the comedy circuit

Without any technical jargon here  about LN, I think the devs have every reason to put this on halt because among the devs themselves there isn't unity and LN hasn't received the support/demand it was to receive which I think is among one of the main reasons devs could be losing faith in it.

Btw, on a forum like Bitcointalk were you expect to have users with the tech knowhow on LN and if we had to ask how many of us use it regularly... am pretty sure the numbers don't look good and on top of that service providers haven't implemented the tech yet, so really the devs decision is justified and worse off after 4 years this technology hasn't made its mark means it's lost its momentum or perhaps this was rushed and product wasn't perfected which makes it a work in progress , just my 2 cents.

LIAR. the junk fills up the space ONCHAIN meaning less people use ONCHAIN so less people are benefiting from onchain use because they are recruited/pushed to abandon using bitcoin

people are using bitcoin networks payments less often. LN has not helped bitcoin at all.. in fact all the stupid strategies of junking up bitcoin and making it expensive has been to make people use bitcoin less in the hopes people will use LN..
yet the adoption rate of LN did not rise during bitcoin congestion, it actually fell..

try to do research based on statistics not snake oil sales pitches

The Lightning Network didn't get mainstream among Bitcoin users, let alone make Bitcoin generally mainstream by solving the scalability issue. It also gained both fans and haters. So I guess it did fall short of some expectations, but it's also worth noting that this has been the case for years, and 2024 doesn't bring anything new to it. That being said, it seems that the Lightning Network adoption is still increasing, and went significantly up in 2023. So the article isn't doing it justice, and the LN still has a decent chance of becoming more significant.

For you, perhaps.  But that doesn't dimish what it does for those who are using it successfully.  On top of that, the fact remains that on-chain users are benefitting passively from other people transacting via LN.  The more people who are using off-chain channels, the fewer transactions there are taking up capacity in the next block. 

IMO it just means he didn't do much research on LN's technical detail. Although i agree some narrative were really exaggerated. For example, few people used to claim as main/universal scaling solution when LN actually designed for micro-transaction and LN user still need to pay on-chain TX fee to open and close channel.

"Necessity is the mother of invention"
Maybe as we get closer to full dependence on transaction fees to support miners more solutions will emerge to fill the much more obvious void then. Today, tons of users are not using LN network cause they can still get by without it, when (or if) fees go much higher at a constant basis, the need for more solutions will create them.

- Jay -

Lighting Network is a failure to my mind, I lost faith in it immediately when I understood how to use it. It's not a practical solution for Bitcoin scalability because it's hard to use for the average human and in a world where everything is getting easier and user experience is getting improved in every product and business, there is no place for Lighting Network. The best solution for everyone in terms of transactions would be a high block size but it has its negative sides as well as I have heard from many bitcointalk members.

The problem with bitcoin’s scalability has been observed years ago thus lightning network has been invented in hopes of reducing transaction fees. But years after, it just shows how ineffective the lightning network is. I hear that the developers are still trying to add features that could finally solve the long-year scalability problem of bitcoin.

Despite all this, bitcoin remains on top of the cryptocurrency scene which just adds to the said scalability issue. I do hope that they come up with something and quickly as well.

Bitcoin lightning will remain no matter the circumstances, it will not fail because its serving the purpose in which it was intended for, many would have seen no reason for its uses because its target was aimed at having a lower cost for making a bulky transaction with same required speed, anything about the ongoing development with the lightning network has nothing to do with bitcoin adoption or the lightning network use, it has always been the same experience with this lightning right from the start and the target may not be applicable on every bitcoiner, but if they see the needs to, they can adopt for its use.

DCG was funding coindesk so coindesk DID promote LN more then reveal its flaws.
DCG did fund the main core devs and also its sister companies of chaincodelabs brinks and other groups that all act like a cult in regards to LN

yes money does influence people.. the problem is people cared more for the FIAT money payday of converting other network crap syphoned value. rather than making bitcoin better to gain via bitcoins progress

and by the way. all LN implementations have flaws because they are using a flawed system that had broken promises from the beginning that could not be fixed due to the design of the system as a whole
dont even bother pretending its a user error for using the wrong wallet

Not just one company.  There are a few different competing implementations.  Coindesk are just less likely to promote the others based on where their bread is buttered.  It's unfortunate that money does have that kind of influence, but that's life, I guess.