Pages:
Author

Topic: Criticisms of the Lightning Network - page 4. (Read 1394 times)

legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 3132
August 02, 2019, 10:56:54 AM
#29
yup... That's right... A grand total of 0 msatoshi in fees made during the months i've been running the node  Grin

That's interesting. Xian01 had been posting his Lightning Network node stats in the Lightning Network Discussion thread before it was closed and he actually managed to earn a few satoshis. If I recall correctly, he was using LND with its built-in autopilot. Here's one of his posts.

Has it experienced any attacks of some kind? That should worry the users, because we simply don't know.

The Lightning Network experienced a DDoS attack in March last year. 20% of all nodes were down at that time due to the attack.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
August 02, 2019, 03:45:34 AM
#28
Another criticism is, how secure is Lightning? Has it experienced any attacks of some kind? That should worry the users, because we simply don't know.

I believe the reason why no one has yet shown any interest in attacking Lightning, is because the total capacity is not that big yet.

How much in total in USD was commited to the DAO?
legendary
Activity: 3402
Merit: 5004
https://merel.mobi => buy facemasks with BTC/LTC
August 02, 2019, 01:46:41 AM
#27
I've seen this discussion going towards the financial side of running a lightning node... Just to make sure no urban legends get created, i decided to share my own statistics..

Just some background info: I've been running a lightning node from before reasonably good lightning node explorers were around... Basically from the moment the first relatively stable beta version of c-lightning was released (once a week i still build c-lightning straight from the head branch on github).
I've used lightning-charged on top of c-lightning and a homebrewn payment system on top of lightning-charged for a long time. Recently i retired my own code and lightning-charged, and put btcpay on top of my c-lightning node. I've created hundreds of invoices and actually received +100 payments (so far).

Now, for the actual, up-to-date, statistics of my node:

Code:
lightning-cli listfunds | grep channel_sat
         "channel_sat" : 41646,
         "channel_sat" : 20200,
         "channel_sat" : 1276,
         "channel_sat" : 27012,
         "channel_sat" : 0,
         "channel_sat" : 0,
         "channel_sat" : 105550,
         "channel_sat" : 0,
         "channel_sat" : 396,
         "channel_sat" : 5285,
         "channel_sat" : 0,
         "channel_sat" : 0,
         "channel_sat" : 0,
         "channel_sat" : 0,
         "channel_sat" : 0,
         "channel_sat" : 0,
         "channel_sat" : 0,
So... currently 17 open channels, 7 with funds on my side of the channel. Dozens of other channels have been closed since i started running a node.

Code:
lightning-cli listfunds | grep channel_total_sat
         "channel_total_sat" : 100000,
         "channel_total_sat" : 5000000,
         "channel_total_sat" : 16777215,
         "channel_total_sat" : 100000,
         "channel_total_sat" : 500000,
         "channel_total_sat" : 500002,
         "channel_total_sat" : 5000000,
         "channel_total_sat" : 500000,
         "channel_total_sat" : 9000000,
         "channel_total_sat" : 9000000,
         "channel_total_sat" : 4499630,
         "channel_total_sat" : 1000000,
         "channel_total_sat" : 5446466,
         "channel_total_sat" : 409293,
         "channel_total_sat" : 100000,
         "channel_total_sat" : 85894,
         "channel_total_sat" : 58108,
All of them have funds on the other side of the channel

Code:
lightning-cli getinfo
{
   "id" : "03301e633b25d769377bf75ce6b6ed2ec570270bc06c8c02bf33c5bd2aa47da098",
   "alias" : "mocacinno",
   "color" : "03301e",
   "num_peers" : 25,
   "num_pending_channels" : 0,
   "num_active_channels" : 17,
   "num_inactive_channels" : 0,
   "address" : [
      {
         "type" : "ipv4",
         "address" : "193.70.78.148",
         "port" : 9735
      }
   ],
   "binding" : [
      {
         "type" : "ipv4",
         "address" : "193.70.78.148",
         "port" : 9735
      }
   ],
   "version" : "v0.7.1-172-gdbc0265-modded",
   "blockheight" : 588181,
   "network" : "bitcoin",
   "msatoshi_fees_collected" : 0,
   "fees_collected_msat" : "0msat"
}

yup... That's right... A grand total of 0 msatoshi in fees made during the months i've been running the node  Grin
legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 3132
August 01, 2019, 01:24:53 PM
#26
There is also another problem when dealing with the lightening networks confirmation. Basically it requires two people to open and close a channel. Opening and closing a channel usually takes around about 10 minutes like previously stated however if one side of the transaction doesn't agree to close the channel then the channel will remain open and this could take up to two weeks to be resolved.

The minimum_depth (a number of confirmations) is usually greater than 1, so it takes more than 10 minutes to fund a channel. The timelock is negotiated before funding a channel and it is usually 144 blocks (~1 day). For example, Eclair Mobile clients become an exception if the user enables payment receiving over the LN. In such case, the timelock is extented to 720 blocks (~5 days) for a local uncooperative close and to 2016 blocks (~2 weeks) for a remote one.

They are generally much lower than on chain Blockchain but if you are routing through others payment channels then they will probably request a cut of the transaction which some might not like. It works in the same way the current Blockchain works but instead miners are receiving the cut.

A 1/10 th satoshi fee sounds better to me than a 1000 satoshi one. Miners already receive a block reward while node operators don't get anything.
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
August 01, 2019, 01:01:51 PM
#25
Fees:
Bitcoin fees can become expensive especially when the network has been congested like in the past. This does not really happen on the lightening network as you are not paying miners to use their hashing rate exactly and instead you are paying for the use of payment channels which every payment channel that you go through will want a cut of the transaction. This is usually pretty low when compared to Bitcoin fees though.

But you need 2 on-chain transaction to open and close channel, which means you details with fees again. If user only need to make 1-2 transaction in some time, then create 1-2 on-chain transaction makes more sense.

Centralization:
Because of the nature of the Lightening Network it is at danger of becoming centralized. What I mean by centralized is there will be great benefit to those that send transactions on a daily basis to use the same node every time which in time people will see the need of creating what has become known as "super nodes".

The best example I have seen of this is if you were to go to a fast food restaurant and they have created a node for their store in the city. They would keep this node open so that customers could pay instantly without having to create a new channel every time.

I don't see how it's centralized, you always could route your transaction through another node, even though i won't deny most likely these "super node" will have big advantage, unless they decide to charge high fees for routing.

IMO those "super node" doesn't mean centralization, but concentration and monopoly.

This could eventually evolve into a nation wide and potentially worldwide payment channel rather than smaller ones being made all the time. America might decide that all american citizens can pay their taxes through the "United States Payment Channel" which would mean greater centralization in nodes. 

Your example doesn't show centralization because "United States Payment Channel" is the destination & government don't force their citizens to route LN transaction through their channel, even though it could serve as big honeypot.

Besides, if government could force their citizens to route all transaction through their channel, they also could force them to use wallet which created & managed by government.
member
Activity: 110
Merit: 131
August 01, 2019, 11:02:06 AM
#24
The lightning network is a great concept in general and has better privacy. However I'm a big fan of transparency and I think the way the current Blockchain displays all transactions that have occurred is a good way of doing it. In the lightning network you cannot see what transactions are going on because they are not stored within the Blockchain. One of the trades off of this is people who know your address will know how much you are spending which could be a privacy concern to those that are trading often and dealing with strangers a lot. Also we should look at the way fees work in the lightning network. They are generally much lower than on chain Blockchain but if you are routing through others payment channels then they will probably request a cut of the transaction which some might not like. It works in the same way the current Blockchain works but instead miners are receiving the cut.

I'm going to try and go through most of the pros and cons of the lightning network and see who agrees with me. I'm not an expert at the lightening chain but am definitely watching the space as I consider it to be one of the most interesting off chain developments being worked on and because we only have the Blockchain to compare to I'll compare each point to that.

Blockchain Vs Lightening Network

Privacy:

Without a doubt the lightening network is far superior to the Blockchain when it comes to privacy although despite some of the criticisms with using one address it has no major trade offs for the improved privacy. Basically when you send a transaction via the lightening network there is little worry to it being recorded permanently on the Blockchain and if it were to get recorded it does not display sources or locations of the funds. One of my favorite things about the Blockchain is it uses a sort of onion like encryption method to nodes so that nodes cant monitor addresses and transactions which is a much improved version over any other implementation of nodes interacting with the blockchain that I have seen.

Confirmation Speed:

This is a big one and one of the biggest criticisms that Bitcoin has is that transactions take too long to confirm. However this is intentional to allow miners to use their hashing power to get cuts of the transaction and keep the network alive and circulating. The only problem with this is depending on the current average network fees you could be waiting days for your transaction to confirm. In comes the lightening network which offers instant transactions almost like your credit card in how quick transactions are sent. I say "almost" because we have to allow for latency on the network but this is generally zero and your transaction should be sent right away. The blockchain manages transactions differently and actually purposely makes transactions confirm before being sent. This is to check whether all nodes on the network are up to date and a double spend hasn't happened.

However there is a drawback to this. You could continuously keep on sending your transactions on the same payment channel and have they sent instantly and received instantly too. However if you actually want to deposit this amount onto the Blockchain remember that the lightening network is off chain and the Bitcoin won't be deposited or recorded to be on the Blockchain until you decide to deposit it by closing a channel. depending on network usage and a few other factors this usually takes around 10 minutes. This is where things get a little complicated too. If the user that you are sending too requires 6 confirmations because of their business practice or whatever you will still have to wait despite you streamlining the process by using a off chain solution.

There is also another problem when dealing with the lightening networks confirmation. Basically it requires two people to open and close a channel. Opening and closing a channel usually takes around about 10 minutes like previously stated however if one side of the transaction doesn't agree to close the channel then the channel will remain open and this could take up to two weeks to be resolved. Therefore anyone you deal with on the lightening network requires a little bit of trust when dealing with them that they won't just disappear and not close the channel because that could be a pain in the arse for both parties. I can't see why anyone would do this on purpose as it just slows the process down for both but I would think that this does happen.

Fees:
Bitcoin fees can become expensive especially when the network has been congested like in the past. This does not really happen on the lightening network as you are not paying miners to use their hashing rate exactly and instead you are paying for the use of payment channels which every payment channel that you go through will want a cut of the transaction. This is usually pretty low when compared to Bitcoin fees though.

Centralization:
Because of the nature of the Lightening Network it is at danger of becoming centralized. What I mean by centralized is there will be great benefit to those that send transactions on a daily basis to use the same node every time which in time people will see the need of creating what has become known as "super nodes".

The best example I have seen of this is if you were to go to a fast food restaurant and they have created a node for their store in the city. They would keep this node open so that customers could pay instantly without having to create a new channel every time. This could eventually evolve into a nation wide and potentially worldwide payment channel rather than smaller ones being made all the time. America might decide that all american citizens can pay their taxes through the "United States Payment Channel" which would mean greater centralization in nodes.  

I believe every wallet, lightning or not, should let you decide which fee to use.i would use 1 sat byte to close the channel, and waiting 5 days would be ok to me.
I'm no expert on LN, but isn't there a risk of broadcasting an older channel state (by the other party) if the closing transaction doesn't confirm on time? From what I understand, you can't just wait for a very long time if Bitcoin on-chain fees go up.
The last time I checked the Lightening network did not check for existing channels and it is possible to broadcast to a older payment channel. However the best practice would be to make sure after every transaction the payment channel has been closed unless you are sending transaction fairly regular to justify keeping that payment channel open. My recommendation is to always close payment channels regardless though to increase privacy and decrease the potential of centralization.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
August 01, 2019, 10:28:20 AM
#23
I believe every wallet, lightning or not, should let you decide which fee to use.i would use 1 sat byte to close the channel, and waiting 5 days would be ok to me.
I'm no expert on LN, but isn't there a risk of broadcasting an older channel state (by the other party) if the closing transaction doesn't confirm on time? From what I understand, you can't just wait for a very long time if Bitcoin on-chain fees go up.
staff
Activity: 3276
Merit: 4111
August 01, 2019, 08:23:46 AM
#22
It's not a matter of being noob friendly or not. There was no option to set fees for closing channels. There was only one option to close friendly or unfriendly (something like that, dispute or not dispute, don't remember). I choose the one with lower fees , but even so fees were not customizable.

O believe every wallet should let users customize their fees, on sat/byte.
Because this would really lead to lower fees in general, everyone would look for lower fees unless absolutely necessary.
Free market would really work better.

For now most users just use "priority" or "standard" or whatever navme the wallet choose, but that really doesn't let you control the fees.
They've made the mistake of looking to streamline, and simplify the service, but without giving the optional option for those that understand fees a little more. I don't think they should scrap the "priority", and "standard" options. I think instead they should keep these as the default values, but allow any user which wishes to customize their fee the ability to do that within the same window.
legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 3132
July 31, 2019, 03:14:53 AM
#21
Regarding criticisms, the need to keep private keys online and regularly monitor channels limits the appeal.

Mobile wallets are a small exception here. Once you enable payment receiving in Eclar Mobile, the timelock for new channels changes and you have to appear online once every two weeks. It's not bad when you compare it to 144 blocks (~1 day) default value.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1196
STOP SNITCHIN'
July 30, 2019, 09:01:48 PM
#20
Regarding criticisms, the need to keep private keys online and regularly monitor channels limits the appeal.

For me, the choice of whether to use Lightning is question of how pressured I am by on-chain fees. For now, the answer is "not enough." I'm hoping by the time that changes, the UX issues will have improved somewhat.

As for success, the jury is out, but it seems inevitable at least as one of several approaches to the scalability question.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3071
July 30, 2019, 05:52:29 PM
#19
I think its lacking ease of use is LN's largest detriment. Even on-chain payments still seem like rocket science to many people, despite having come a long way from just a few years back.

I'm fairly positive though that we'll get there eventually

There's a limit to how much the UX can be streamlined or simplified. Part of that is because both Bitcoin and Lightning are still under massively active development, and with Bitcoin that's 10+ years of work (and that's not even counting all the ruminating on possible designs that Satoshi possibly did, then the prototypes attempts, all before Bitcoin itself was worked on).


And what that's demonstrating is that we've (Bitcoin users) all adapted to Bitcoin's most simplified concepts, despite how technical and sophisticated those remain. All in the name of independent money. I'm sure that automobiles or telephones or firearms were criticized as overly complicated at their advent, but the potential advantage to be gained was too tempting, and so instead people wanted to learn. And now we're all driving around, busting salvos of M16 fire into the air out of rolled down windows, with cryptographic gold kept in electronic wallets on our keyrings Cheesy


So I expect Lightning's perceived UX issues to ameliorate a little, but mostly through familiarity-driven self interest.
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 6006
bitcoindata.science
July 30, 2019, 05:43:10 PM
#18

I believe every wallet, lightning or not, should let you decide which fee to use.i would use 1 sat byte to close the channel, and waiting 5 days would be ok to me.

This can be a problem. I know for a fact about one gal that custom set the fees on her greenaddress wallet and waited like a week to see her transaction get the first confirmation. Something like that can happen on the LN too.

I think there should be a noob friend, fire and forget kinda solution for LN.

It's not a matter of being noob friendly or not. There was no option to set fees for closing channels. There was only one option to close friendly or unfriendly (something like that, dispute or not dispute, don't remember). I choose the one with lower fees , but even so fees were not customizable.

O believe every wallet should let users customize their fees, on sat/byte.
Because this would really lead to lower fees in general, everyone would look for lower fees unless absolutely necessary.
Free market would really work better.

For now most users just use "priority" or "standard" or whatever navme the wallet choose, but that really doesn't let you control the fees.
hero member
Activity: 1778
Merit: 764
www.V.systems
July 30, 2019, 04:47:16 PM
#17
As long as you use a custodial service like bluwallet (ios), using LN is pretty easy but custodial services has always been easy to use anyway.

It is a bit pain if you want full control of your funds and for that you need to own your own node and this is where the fun (some might call it pain) starts.

Bluewallet is the only thing that made me use LN for the first and probably the last time. It's so hard to fire it up on your own knowing the technicalities involved to just make it work. Perhaps I'm not that technically competent when it comes to these things but seeing you guys having the same problem as I do somehow makes me feel better (lol). It's a great solution to reduce the load on the main network, don't get me wrong, but with the technicalities involved in getting it right the first time just to send pennies/a few dollars is definitely not worth the effort and the time--unless of course you use a custodial wallet/service that does the messy stuff for you.

Perhaps you should give Wallet of Satoshi a shot. Their tagline says it's so easy that even your mom could use it. And most importantly it is fully custodial.

This is developed by the same people behind RoomofSatoshi.

Look em up.
legendary
Activity: 3542
Merit: 1352
Cashback 15%
July 30, 2019, 04:10:36 PM
#16
As long as you use a custodial service like bluwallet (ios), using LN is pretty easy but custodial services has always been easy to use anyway.

It is a bit pain if you want full control of your funds and for that you need to own your own node and this is where the fun (some might call it pain) starts.

Bluewallet is the only thing that made me use LN for the first and probably the last time. It's so hard to fire it up on your own knowing the technicalities involved to just make it work. Perhaps I'm not that technically competent when it comes to these things but seeing you guys having the same problem as I do somehow makes me feel better (lol). It's a great solution to reduce the load on the main network, don't get me wrong, but with the technicalities involved in getting it right the first time just to send pennies/a few dollars is definitely not worth the effort and the time--unless of course you use a custodial wallet/service that does the messy stuff for you.
hero member
Activity: 1778
Merit: 764
www.V.systems
July 30, 2019, 02:39:27 PM
#15
As long as you use a custodial service like bluwallet (ios), using LN is pretty easy but custodial services has always been easy to use anyway.

It is a bit pain if you want full control of your funds and for that you need to own your own node and this is where the fun (some might call it pain) starts.

Which is why I said

I think there should be a noob friend, fire and forget kinda solution for LN.

People will gravitate mostly towards the easy solutions no matter how hard we beat our drums about privacy and controlling your own funds as opposed to someone else controlling them.
And I think this would be beneficial for the adoption of the tech. The easier the tech, the faster the adoption.
legendary
Activity: 3276
Merit: 2442
July 30, 2019, 02:34:37 PM
#14
As long as you use a custodial service like bluwallet (ios), using LN is pretty easy but custodial services has always been easy to use anyway.

It is a bit pain if you want full control of your funds and for that you need to own your own node and this is where the fun (some might call it pain) starts.
legendary
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3014
Welt Am Draht
July 30, 2019, 02:33:54 PM
#13
Mostly here and especially on r/Bitcoin, I've been seeing mostly, around 95%, positivity when it comes to the lightning network.

I reckon 99% of that 95% have never used a lightning network. They're positive about it because it's something to deflect present criticisms without having to put any thought into it.  

I sampled a testnet wallet before it went live. I couldn't get it to work. It's an extra layer of noodling that I quickly abandoned. It may be way better now but I'm in no hurry to return to it.

If people believe Bitcoin itself needs UX work, that's nothing compared what LNs need. BTC feels rather more fire and forget.
hero member
Activity: 1778
Merit: 764
www.V.systems
July 30, 2019, 02:29:56 PM
#12
I guess it's biggest drawbacks are:
  • The learning curve (pretty steep)
  • The software: most of it is still in alpha or beta phase... This doesn't show a lot of trust from the dev side (at the moment)
  • Not enough open channels to relay all payments effectively

I've been running a site that accepts LN for a rather long time now, and so far everything works fine... But then last week i tried to get payed by a person i personally see as technically competent, and so far i haven't been able to get him to the point where he can succesfully make a LN payment.

While I am personally yet to use LN myself, for any purpose, but the fact that it almost went viral on twitter and was wildly talked about was pretty rad. People were having fun with just like they were having fun with btc transactions back in 2016-17, people were transacting just for fun and that caught on.

The learning curve will get easier once this grows beyond the immediate geek-squad niche and move into more of a commercial side of things.

I believe every wallet, lightning or not, should let you decide which fee to use.i would use 1 sat byte to close the channel, and waiting 5 days would be ok to me.

This can be a problem. I know for a fact about one gal that custom set the fees on her greenaddress wallet and waited like a week to see her transaction get the first confirmation. Something like that can happen on the LN too.

I think there should be a noob friend, fire and forget kinda solution for LN.
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 6006
bitcoindata.science
July 30, 2019, 11:30:58 AM
#11
.
I am not sure about c-lightning, but LND allows users to set the closing transaction fee through --sat_per_byte parameter. Even if the implementation supports a certain feature, clients also have to implement it. What was the recommended transaction fee at the time? @LoyceV pointed out that Eclair Mobile overcharges for the closing transaction depending on the mempool state.

The fees were high at the time (like 40 sat).
But I opened the channel with very low fee. I didn't thought that eclair would just use a "recommended fee" (I hate this idea) to close it. It costed me about 0.0004 BTC to close it.

I believe every wallet, lightning or not, should let you decide which fee to use.i would use 1 sat byte to close the channel, and waiting 5 days would be ok to me.
legendary
Activity: 3402
Merit: 5004
https://merel.mobi => buy facemasks with BTC/LTC
July 30, 2019, 09:19:48 AM
#10
It's Eclair's fault. I am not sure about c-lightning, but LND allows users to set the closing transaction fee through --sat_per_byte parameter. Even if the implementation supports a certain feature, clients also have to implement it. What was the recommended transaction fee at the time? @LoyceV pointed out that Eclair Mobile overcharges for the closing transaction depending on the mempool state.

I have a c-lightning node, and i quickly looked up the man...

It does look that, without editing c-lightning sourcecode, you cannot set the fee for the onchain closing transaction... I never even tought about this problem, i very seldomly close a channel, and when i do, i have never tought about changing the fee...

Quote
LIGHTNING-CLOSE(7)                                                                                                              LIGHTNING-CLOSE(7)

NAME
       lightning-close - Command for closing channels with direct peers

SYNOPSIS
       close id [force] [timeout]

DESCRIPTION
       The close RPC command attempts to close the channel cooperatively with the peer. If the given id is a peer ID (66 hex digits as a string),
       then it applies to the active channel of the direct peer corresponding to the given peer ID. If the given id is a channel ID (64 hex digits
       as a string, or the short channel ID blockheight:txindex:outindex form), then it applies to that channel.

       The close command will time out and return with an error when the number of seconds specified in timeout is reached. If unspecified, it
       times out in 30 seconds.

       The force argument, if the JSON value true, will cause the channel to be unilaterally closed when the timeout is reached. If so, timeout
       will not cause an error, but instead cause the channel to be failed and put onchain unilaterally. Unilateral closes will lead to your funds
       getting locked according to the to_self_delay parameter of the peer.

       Normally the peer needs to be live and connected in order to negotiate a mutual close. Forcing a unilateral close can be used if you
       suspect you can no longer contact the peer.

RETURN VALUE
       On success, an object with fields tx and txid containing the closing transaction are returned. It will also have a field type which is
       either the JSON string mutual or the JSON string unilateral. A mutual close means that we could negotiate a close with the peer, while a
       unilateral close means that the force flag was set and we had to close the channel without waiting for the counterparty.

       A unilateral close may still occur with force set to false if the peer did not behave correctly during the close negotiation.

       Unilateral closes will return your funds after a delay. The delay will vary based on the peer to_self_delay setting, not your own setting.

       On failure, if close failed due to timing out with force argument false, the channel will still eventually close once we have contacted the
       peer.

AUTHOR
       ZmnSCPxj <~redacted~> is mainly responsible.

SEE ALSO
RESOURCES
       Main web site: https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning

                                                                    04/30/2018                                                  LIGHTNING-CLOSE(7)
Pages:
Jump to: