How will Lightning Network be encouraged to use? - page 2.

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: figmentofmyass on January 16, 2018, 06:47:13 PM

there is no ETA. lightning developers have taken the position that there is "no rush" considering how much value is expected to be stored in payment channels. they are very concerned about ensuring that no funds are lost as a result of using the LN protocol.

having said that, it's pretty widely expected that LN will be usable by the general public sometime this year, likely in a matter of months. the next major step is to complete wallet implementations. we're already seeing lightning transactions on the network; now it's mainly just a matter of releasing the software.

It's not like there's an actual "official LN launch" date or anything like that. Rather LN will be "launched" when people feel confident enough in one or more implementations of LN to use it on the main Bitcoin network. In fact, you could consider LN to already be launched as there already are people using LN on the mainnet. Of course those people do so at the risk of their money, but nonetheless, the software mostly works and there are transactions occurring.

Quote from: Valle on January 16, 2018, 10:18:32 PM

I wonder how a Lightning user interface would look like. Instead a "Send" button there will be "Open channel" button (same fee as just Send button + X bitcoins to deposit into channel) and then "Send via the opened channel" (no fee) and then "Close channel" (same fee as just Send button). Given this complexity and the fact that you have to spend twice as much in fees to send same amount of money as without LN I really wonder how the "greed" would work.

It's very likely that it will still just be a "Send" button. Channel management and all that will actually be handled by the software automatically. You put money into your LN wallet, and it will use that to open and close channels automatically. So when you want to send Bitcoin to someone, your LN wallet will have established several channels. It will also determine an optimal route and do everything automatically for you. There's no need for you to manually open and close channels yourself; the software will handle all of that for you.

Valle

full member

Activity: 177

Merit: 101

I wonder how a Lightning user interface would look like. Instead a "Send" button there will be "Open channel" button (same fee as just Send button + X bitcoins to deposit into channel) and then "Send via the opened channel" (no fee) and then "Close channel" (same fee as just Send button). Given this complexity and the fact that you have to spend twice as much in fees to send same amount of money as without LN I really wonder how the "greed" would work.

If you say you need big aggregators like Coinbase... Well, why would a user choose the aggregator instead using um... Zelle for example? Maybe only for transnational payments.

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: pq3eq on January 15, 2018, 05:58:00 PM

When DEVs plan integrate it?

there is no ETA. lightning developers have taken the position that there is "no rush" considering how much value is expected to be stored in payment channels. they are very concerned about ensuring that no funds are lost as a result of using the LN protocol.

having said that, it's pretty widely expected that LN will be usable by the general public sometime this year, likely in a matter of months. the next major step is to complete wallet implementations. we're already seeing lightning transactions on the network; now it's mainly just a matter of releasing the software.

pq3eq

newbie

Activity: 77

Merit: 0

When DEVs plan integrate it?

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: Spendulus on January 13, 2018, 08:34:04 PM

How may it be rapidly established?

Things seem to mover very slowly, look at segwit adoption.

Some kind of incentives at the start?

this is the first obvious answer:

Quote from: piotr_n on January 13, 2018, 10:12:01 PM

Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?

anyone who uses BTC all the time has been feeling the pain of rising fees. for many people, that's reason enough to have adopted segwit already even though it's not in the core gui yet. lightning can lower fees much more than segwit, so i would expect adoption to be faster too.

past that, there are literally fee incentives built into the system. people sending LN transactions need to pay for routing hops. the nodes that provide those hops compete for fees. of course, these fees will be astronomically cheaper than on-chain fees. but for the first time, ordinary nodes will be compensated merely for propagating transactions.

Anti-Cen

member

Activity: 210

Merit: 26

High fees = low BTC price

Quote from: maxxdxx on January 15, 2018, 10:57:23 AM

Lightning Network has been in development for a long time and it's currently running on the testnet and mainnet (both are not 100% perfect yet). More time is needed to fix bugs and make nice clients.

But Bitcoin had nine years to be perfected and they knew from day one that it would not scale so yes
lets give them more time if they say they need it but for our continued loyal support all they need to do
is add one line of code into Bitcoin core if they somehow forgot to add it before

public static money MaxFee =1.50 // 20,000 miners not needed when 1,000 is more than enough

Yes if market forces and not just a scam can fees up due a badly designed system that is slow then lets see market forces
removing most miners because we don't have that much cream on the cake to share around and CPU-Wars
between more and more miners is only keeping Intel, AMD and big oil rich so work that in to getting one
up on the bankers

Anti-Cen

member

Activity: 210

Merit: 26

High fees = low BTC price

Quote from: piotr_n on January 13, 2018, 10:31:20 PM

I think the bigger problem is the lack of software, rather than the funds of the big players.
Big players don't really need cheap transaction - it's the small players that need them.

The problem is that everyone who's been involved with bitcoin long enough, today has enough dosh to not needing to work anymore.
So whoever is going to make this Lightning Network software, likely needs to learn first.

Yes agree

Quote

Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?

Agree if your talking about using another type of alt-coin and you have much respect from me
but Lightning does not reduce fees much for normal use even if we get wallets that can use it
in say six months time and wait longer for Exodus or Jaxx to adopt it.

Bob does not want to buy a coffee a day from Alice for the next month but wants whats
been selling using BTC from day one, some skunk weed this month and Alice does not want
to hang around doing too many transactions in case the old bill come knocking

Please add hubs/banks into the process because we have already had the arguments about
BTC is only good for sending amounts over $1000 across the wire and now it's going to be
LN is good if you pretend that you don't use real fiat cash when out shopping and everyone
takes Bitcoins and are all connected to major hubs/banks

maxxdxx

full member

Activity: 199

Merit: 100

Lightning Network has been in development for a long time and it's currently running on the testnet and mainnet (both are not 100% perfect yet). More time is needed to fix bugs and make nice clients.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: bob123 on January 14, 2018, 06:48:25 AM

Quote from: piotr_n on January 13, 2018, 10:12:01 PM

It's pretty obvious.
Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?
It is going to be encouraged by your greed.

Unfortunately this won't work this way.
Look at segwit. SegWit got introduced in July (i think). And still the amount of segwit transactions hovers around 10% (http://segwit.party/charts/#).

Thats quite sad. Especially if you think about the pros / cons.
Pros: Lower fees, Higher rate of TX/s the network is capable of performing, 1st step towards Lightning network, ...
Cons: I'm not aware of any cons regarding segwit.
But still... segwit is far far away from being adopted by the current userbase.

It makes you think what the agenda of those companies who signed the NYA are. Were they really calling for a scaling solution or were they trying to kick the Core developers out?

I believe the "scaling debate" was about politics and the Bitcoin oligarchy wanted to kick out the Core developers.

Ucy

sr. member

Activity: 2674

Merit: 403

Compare rates on different exchanges & swap.

Quote from: piotr_n on January 13, 2018, 10:31:20 PM

I think the bigger problem is the lack of software, rather than the funds of the big players.
Big players don't really need cheap transaction - it's the small players that need them.

The problem is that everyone who's been involved with bitcoin long enough, today has enough dosh to not needing to work anymore
So whoever is going to make this Lightning Network software, likely needs to learn first.

Interesting point there. But I have my doubts though. MOST early adopters (2009— 2011 adopters ) aren't in for the money. They would most likely continue making stuff.
Life without SciTechnology would be very boring and depressing to them.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 2178

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: btcton on January 14, 2018, 06:24:00 PM

Quote from: ABCbits on January 14, 2018, 02:28:25 PM

1. Promoting LN advantage compared with on-chain transaction.
2. Availability of user-friendly LN software, at least should be as friendly as Electrum.
3. LN Support and adoption from exchange/services/business.

I am not familiar with how wallet software would be using the Lightning Network. I thought the Lightning Network was mostly used for bigger businesses who have to perform many transactions that could open and close channels with these transactions in them; am I misunderstanding? I could see user wallets using the channels provided by others, but I do not see how we would be able to take advantage of it on our own without the help of a bigger party. As you say, support and adoption from exchanges/services/businesses should help.

Lightning Network aims to be used by both consumers and businesses. The premise being that bi-directional payment channels can be used to create a network of nodes -- ie. the lightning network -- which enables every connected participant to transact with everyone else. That is, regardless of whether they have a direct channel running or are connected indirectly via a route across the lightning network.

Check out some of the testnet lightning wallets and applications for a first glimpse:

1) HTLC.me web wallet ( https://htlc.me/ )
2) Eclair testnet android wallet ( Google Play Store )
3) Lightning Desktop App ( https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-app/releases )
4) yalls.org for spending testnet microtransactions ( https://yalls.org/ )

It's still rough around the edges though.

btcton

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1007

Quote from: ABCbits on January 14, 2018, 02:28:25 PM

1. Promoting LN advantage compared with on-chain transaction.
2. Availability of user-friendly LN software, at least should be as friendly as Electrum.
3. LN Support and adoption from exchange/services/business.

I am not familiar with how wallet software would be using the Lightning Network. I thought the Lightning Network was mostly used for bigger businesses who have to perform many transactions that could open and close channels with these transactions in them; am I misunderstanding? I could see user wallets using the channels provided by others, but I do not see how we would be able to take advantage of it on our own without the help of a bigger party. As you say, support and adoption from exchanges/services/businesses should help.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

1. Promoting LN advantage compared with on-chain transaction.
2. Availability of user-friendly LN software, at least should be as friendly as Electrum.
3. LN Support and adoption from exchange/services/business.

Mcfee lee

newbie

Activity: 48

Merit: 0

Lighting network is the solution that can kill bch I think

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: COTInetwork on January 14, 2018, 10:20:46 AM

Well I think everyone is waiting for someone or on a group to take this up a notch and deliver some way for the entire miner community to adopt it.

Fortunately this doesn't need any further cooperation from the miner community.

Otherwise I'd be really concerned

COTInetwork

member

Activity: 426

Merit: 10

Coti - Currency Of The Internet

Well I think everyone is waiting for someone or on a group to take this up a notch and deliver some way for the entire miner community to adopt it. Give them good enough reason to do so. Nobody likes change. Naturally this goes against the human mind. However we must move forward.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: HeRetiK on January 14, 2018, 09:42:37 AM

Still, ease of use for the average consumer and ease of integration for companies will also play a major factor. It's the main factor that worries me about the future speed of LN adaption. There's only one way to find out though.

People learn quickly.

I remember years ago when Gavin Andresen was the famous Bitcoin Chief Scientist, he was always saying that in order for Bitcoin to succeed, the wallet's interface needs to be so simple that even his granny could use it.
Since then the wallet's interface hasn't changed, but we can say that Bitcoin has succeeded pretty much.

People can learn to handle new staff - especially when there is a profit involved.
They will have to learn to handle the payment channels. And they will.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 2178

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: piotr_n on January 14, 2018, 09:18:48 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on January 14, 2018, 09:10:47 AM

Can you think of an incentive for users to move in the direction of LN?

I already said it: greed.

Why would a user pay $20 fee, if he can pay much less?

Obviously the companies who make their money on small transactions are going to enable that, because nobody is going to use them otherwise and they will go out of business.

It's inevitable.

Greed is a bit of a strong word here, but the main incentive is definitely going to be a savings in transaction fees. After all cheap transactions -- in terms of blocksize space and consequently transaction fees -- is why LN is being implemented in the first place.

Still, ease of use for the average consumer and ease of integration for companies will also play a major factor. It's the main factor that worries me about the future speed of LN adaption. There's only one way to find out though.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: Spendulus on January 14, 2018, 09:10:47 AM

Can you think of an incentive for users to move in the direction of LN?

I already said it: greed.

Why would a user pay $20 fee, if he can pay much less?

Obviously the companies who make their money on small transactions are going to enable that, because nobody is going to use them otherwise and they will go out of business.

It's inevitable.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: piotr_n on January 14, 2018, 08:41:36 AM

Quote from: bob123 on January 14, 2018, 06:48:25 AM

Quote from: piotr_n on January 13, 2018, 10:12:01 PM

It's pretty obvious.
Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?
It is going to be encouraged by your greed.

Unfortunately this won't work this way.
Look at segwit. SegWit got introduced in July (i think). And still the amount of segwit transactions hovers around 10% (http://segwit.party/charts/#).

Because the most commonly used wallets don't really suport it yet, so most people don't have choice as they are not tech savvy and can't do command line.

Even people who made Segwit in the first place have not really released the segwit functionality for the wallet they make.
So what do you expect from others?

This is not unusual. If you ever worked in a big organisation, you know the release cycle (preceded by design, development and testing) of such a feature would take probably about a year.
The Lightning Networks are surely much more complex and will take far more time to release than the segwit payments - but it's gonna happen for sure, as there is money to save and therefore to make.

Can you think of an incentive for users to move in the direction of LN?

Topic: How will Lightning Network be encouraged to use? - page 2. (Read 611 times)