How will Lightning Network be encouraged to use? - page 3.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

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.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 2178

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: btcton on January 14, 2018, 01:09:17 AM

That statement is of my concern as well. In fact, we have seen something similar happen with Coinbase: they seem to be refusing to use SegWit addresses and transactions even when they would be much cheaper in fees and even when they have already had more than enough time to implement them into their infrastructure. [...]

Apparently Coinbase is not even batching their transactions yet. Given Coinbase's transaction volume, this alone would already save a ton of blockspace. Apparently transaction fees don't hurt their bottom line, as they can simply roll that cost over to their customers. And as long as transaction fees don't hurt their bottom line, reducing them won't be much of a priority. Coinbase only cares about people buying bitcoin, not using them. A picture book example of misaligned incentives, unfortunately.

My biggest hope in regards to kickstarting LN adoption is currently merchants and the likes of BitPay. BitPay has nothing to gain from people buying Bitcoin unless they actually use them. So in this case the incentives should be aligned in LN's favor.

bob123

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 2481

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.

In my opinion, to adopt the lightning network correctly, there are 2 crucial point:
1) Services with a bit userbase need to implement it (exchanges, merchants, gambling sites, ..)
2) There has to be a 1-click- wallet to be able to connect to a payment channel and use it for payments.

Especially the second point is crucial for mass adoption.
Simple wallet, fancy UI, nice functionality and not overwhelming is what people need as a wallet.

btcton

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1007

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.

That statement is of my concern as well. In fact, we have seen something similar happen with Coinbase: they seem to be refusing to use SegWit addresses and transactions even when they would be much cheaper in fees and even when they have already had more than enough time to implement them into their infrastructure. I could see this benefiting them when trying to appeal to the masses by stating that their transactions between Coinbase users incur no fees. By doing this, they can expand their customer base even further which they would like to do in order to profit even more. As a result, they would not likely support any changes that would mean on-chain transaction fees go down. It would, subsequently, screw over anyone else who uses the network by forcing them into paying higher fees which would then further encourage them to jump ship into Coinbase, and then it starts spiraling out of control. It could be quite bad if they do get an even bigger hold of the people, bitcoins, and transactions than they currently have. They don't need to adopt the Lightning Network for themselves; in fact, they don't want to because the ones who really need it are the rest of us.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

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.

Plus wallet software developers like Electrum should add a "Lightning send" capability to make it easier for users who want cheaper and faster transactions. I also believe that we should start campaigning for gambling sites and wallet providers to start using Segwit, then the exchanges next.

Segwit is the introduction to the Lightning Network. It should be most used in casinos, exchanges and other services where there are lots of microtransactions.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

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.

lionelho

full member

Activity: 135

Merit: 100

In order to run smoothly, there need several big players in the network, acting like a hub to connect the individuals. The big player needs to have enough funds as the payment channels require to lock the currency. That needs a long time to establish.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

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.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

How may it be rapidly established?

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

Some kind of incentives at the start?

Topic: How will Lightning Network be encouraged to use? - page 3. (Read 611 times)