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, just like wallet software improved over the years. With more and more users getting familiar with cryptocurrencies and LN ease of use improving we'll end up somewhere viable sooner or later. We still have a long way to go though.
Once we're there though -- which is probably still years from now, so the developer community will need a long breath -- liquidity, routing, etc likely won't be a problem anymore.
Topic: Criticisms of the Lightning Network - page 5. (Read 1444 times)
the "chicken & egg" problem
New users to Bitcoin cannot directly receive Lightning payments to get involved, they must first buy BTC, then open a channel. Only then can they receive (or send) over Lightning.
Solutions
so really the solutions are not ideal, and Statechains depend on eltoo. Needs a better solution.
New users to Bitcoin cannot directly receive Lightning payments to get involved, they must first buy BTC, then open a channel. Only then can they receive (or send) over Lightning.
Solutions
- the "Statechains" concept can apparently solve this problem, but comes with it's own compromises
- negotiate a channel opening, buy BTC from a seller that sends to you to settle the deal, send the BTC to the channel opening address to establish the channel
so really the solutions are not ideal, and Statechains depend on eltoo. Needs a better solution.
I guess it's biggest drawbacks are:
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.
This is something that needs to be improved before they roll out of the Beta phase. User interface, and general usability should be streamlined so even the average computer user can use the software, otherwise its just going to get a bad reputation for being only useful for those that are technically competent. The concept of the lightning network is an interesting one, and its by no means a perfect system, however its probably the most interesting development at the time being. - 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.
The lack of open channels will hopefully become more redundant as time passes, and more users are using the lightening network. This I wouldn't be too concerned about considering the early developments of the lightning network.
The fees to topen/close channels were higher than I expected, and they were also not transparent.
I set a low fee (like 3 sat byte) but later on when closing the channel I was charged high fees, and I don't know where they came from. I couldn't set them also.
I set a low fee (like 3 sat byte) but later on when closing the channel I was charged high fees, and I don't know where they came from. I couldn't set them also.
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 used lightning network once, and I have some critics about it.
The fees to topen/close channels were higher than I expected, and they were also not transparent.
I set a low fee (like 3 sat byte) but later on when closing the channel I was charged high fees, and I don't know where they came from. I couldn't set them also.
I was using Éclair wallet and had no problems with the software (ui seed etc, all fine)
The fees to topen/close channels were higher than I expected, and they were also not transparent.
I set a low fee (like 3 sat byte) but later on when closing the channel I was charged high fees, and I don't know where they came from. I couldn't set them also.
I was using Éclair wallet and had no problems with the software (ui seed etc, all fine)
- The learning curve (pretty steep)
Precisely. Bitcoin in itself is quite complicated enough for the typical non computer literate person. LN is going to be a lot harder to use for them. Hence my point of the challenge here is mostly on the user experience category.
I believe what might be a "weakness" in Lightning is that users will need to stake their Bitcoin to provide liquidity in LN, therefore removing liquidity outside LN.
Plus I also believe that fees in Lightning will not be "unfairly cheap" at some point. It will be higher than altcoins.
Plus I also believe that fees in Lightning will not be "unfairly cheap" at some point. It will be higher than altcoins.
I guess it's biggest drawbacks are:
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.
- 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.
Mostly here and especially on r/Bitcoin, I've been seeing mostly, around 95%, positivity when it comes to the lightning network.
I'm just curious. For a change, let us look at the negatives. What are your criticisms concerning the Lightning Network? Do you think it's likely to succeed?
Personally, I think it's likely to succeed, though I think it will take a lot longer than people are expecting. I think it's going to be difficult for the developers to make LN easy enough to use for the end users, to the point that they couldn't even differentiate if they're using LN or just normal transactions.
I'm just curious. For a change, let us look at the negatives. What are your criticisms concerning the Lightning Network? Do you think it's likely to succeed?
Personally, I think it's likely to succeed, though I think it will take a lot longer than people are expecting. I think it's going to be difficult for the developers to make LN easy enough to use for the end users, to the point that they couldn't even differentiate if they're using LN or just normal transactions.
Jump to: