Topic: Isn't Lightning Network bad for Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 377 times)

Bitcoin Lightning Network is a layer 2 that runs on the Bitcoin blockchain which mean without bitcoin blockchain (when miners paid) you cant use it.
In fact, you need one transaction on the network to open the channel and another to close it, so at least you need two transactions.

The lightning network is also suitable for daily solutions, which are often less than a thousand dollars, and not transfers of larger amounts, as waiting for 10 minutes will not be long.

So it is not a competing solution to the Bitcoin network but you are risking the high security that the Bitcoin network provides so don't put too much money in the lightning channels.

there are many flaws in LN
first is people dont realise bitcoins never EVER leave the bitcoin network.
all the liquidity in LN is based on pegged balance of locked bitcoin.

Ln liquidity is not bitocin its a new unit called msat. a 1:1000 unsecured peg(a flaw)

anyways
the more thats locked, the longer its locked the less transactions happen on bitcoin (less users using bitcoin)

do not confuse using LN as still considered as being "using bitcoin"
much like the sayings of custodial services if you are playing with exchange mysql balance your not playing with real bitcoin. same with the stable coins. its not actual dollar your playing with

the flaws of this is that the pegs are not secured on the LN side by a consensus algo. wallets can easily create new msat balance or tweak software EASILY to misrepresent the locked bitcoin pegged balance. to a fake allotment of msat at the LN GUI and people wont know untll they close their channel months later

if anything has been learned recently about the luna stablecoin fiasco is to never trust side networks/altnets/layers as those other networks can easily de-peg or fractional reserve.

im not saying that some altnets dont have a niche to service some peoples fast/temporary spends. but by no means does that mean people should lock up value long term in them.

other flaws are the mis-understanding of LN
people call it the bitcoin 2.0, the next gen "the layer ontop". (subtle hints that LN is bigger and better and ontop, above bitcoin) suggesting bitcoin is broke/not fit. dead

LNs messaging system of payments is not even a bitcoin tx. its instead a message in msat balance. which already mentioned can be messed with as there is no network wide audit of these payments.
too many people "trust2 the GUI display of msats as being the 1:1000 peg. but dont ever truly check that the post "success" commitments and the close session conversions of a unconconfirmed unbroadcast bitcoin format did actualy convert back to the amount they expect if they were to broadcast/confirm by closing the channel

i know you are probably now going to see some familiar names post after mine throwing insults and then using uptopian dream hype best case scenario advertising scripts to describe how they love and trust LN.

but there are many flaws in it. and people should be wary of it.

one of the flaws about its "scalability"
imagine you wanted to pay $10 to someone 5 peers(hops/channel partners) away
from:
A $10:$0 B $10:$0 C $10:$0 D $10:$0 E $10:$0 F
to :
A $0:$10 B $0:$10 C $0:$10 D $0:$10 E $0:$10 F

just to allow for a $10 payment. the network had to have $40 liquidity to have a successful payment
yep more funds are needed than the network will allow to spend.. (think about that, there are many implications)

next up is not every route has liquidity
EG
A $10:$0 B $10:$0 C $9:$0 D $10:$0 E $10:$0 F
yep c's $9 stops A from making a $10 payment even if b,d,e did have $10 liquidity

this then adds another flaw. people then needing more then one channel and more then one route to a destination..
EG
A $10:$0 B $10:$0 C $09:$0 D $10:$0 E $10:$0 F
  \$10:$0 Z $10:$0 Y $10:$0 X $10:$0 /

and now for A to needs to lock up more coin just to have more liquidity in more channels to the have the chance to pay $10 to F. where by the network now has more then $40 liquidity needed($79) to facilitate a $10 payment

there is a limit to how many coins can be locked meaning a limit to liquidity of pegged altnets meaning a limit to how much can be used and spend and passed on

EG in this case A made his $10 to F.. whereby now those along the route have no spare liquidity to use for themselves to pay F. its already spent by A

You should learn how the Lightning Network works first and then create forum posts asking questions. I'm not an expert on LN, but I don't think that there are "miners" in the Lightning Network. However, I might be wrong about this.
I guess that we will have to wait until 2029 and see if Satoshi was right. There's still a small possibility that the Bitcoin Core blockchain will have no transactions by 2029. I think that the blockchain will adapt and improve, so we shouldn't worry about that.
I'm sure that after the next halving in 2024, the Bitcoin price will move in the 50K-150K USD frame, so the miners will get big enough transaction fees to cover their costs and make profits. The green energy will get cheaper as well.

In spite of the fact that currently bitcoin base layer is being used by a tiny fraction of the population (106 million according to https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/how-many-bitcoin-users/),  we sometimes witness blocks full of transactions and very high fees due to long-lasting congestions in the mempool. What will happen to a bitcoin network when all 8 billion people start utilizing the base layer of bitcoin to make small payments? Given that the bitcoin block is of limited size, the increase in the number of active users will inevitably bring about intensive competition for the right to get into the closest block, which will naturally result in very high fees and the impossibility of making small payments. In other words, there should be some additional layer for making small payments built on top of the bitcoin main layer where people no longer need to fight constantly for scarce space. They will continue using the main bitcoin layer as a settlement layer, but they will do that much less frequently than they would have to were there no additional layers like Lightning Network.

I agree it's faster, cheaper and more convenient for both buyer and seller, and it's an inovative technology (& scalability problem). I was just thinking that, being a zero-sum game, the more you use lightning network, the less you use the original network, created by Satoshi, and don't contribute to that "very large transaction volume" needed for bitcoin to work as intended.

They are paid when you open a channel, so your argument doesn't hold.

I don't know if what you think is that miners won't get paid for transactions inside the channel once it's open so they'll go broke, but the LN was created to try to solve the scalability problem, so I'm sure there will be plenty of on-chain transactions for which miners will be able to get paid. It is not incompatible.

How come a faster and cheaper alternative of payment for Bitcoin be bad for it? I mean you can instantly pay for your coffee or anything within seconds and that is what the current demand of both the buyer and seller is. Also, Lightning makes it much cheaper. No one is forcing you to set up a Lightning node, and those who are doing it are helping the technology grow without being selfish.

Hello everyone!
I was thinking about one thing, Satoshi once said:
"In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for [mining] nodes. I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume."

As far as I know, in Lightning Network transactions, miners are not paid. So, doesn't this thing affect Bitcoin Network? If miners don't get enough fees to have a decent profit, they will be likely to stop mining.

Can someone explain this situation?