Topic: Lightning Network, is it a good solution? - page 2. (Read 677 times)

This makes no sense in my opinion. BTC was designed as an online payment alternative to offline FIAT in order to help people conduct financial transactions in an anonymous and decentralized manner. Offline payments was never the goal which is why this isn't a disadvantage at all.


Even if the fees is less, you will end up spending a lot for maintaining the channels which is why it is only feasible when working with particular users on a regular basis. Overall, it isn't always cheap.

anyone who actually cares about BTC and not alt networks knows less transaction on BTC is less fee's for miner.
anyone who cares about BTC knows that the 2mb base block proposal is not as hardware reckless as segwits 4mb
..oops you didnt realise that did you. 2mb base vs 4mb weight =4mb weight is more reckless (yep you debunked your own narrative)

telling people to get off the btc network is not helping the network.
telling people to use custodians and for the users to only use litewallets. also reduces the 'node count' because users are no longer using btc network daily so dont bother being full nodes.

again LN is causing more harm to the btc network..


bank notes have their niche. but a bank note is not a gold nugget
LN millisats have their niche. but LN millisats are not btc

vaulting up gold/btc and then playing with bank notes/millisats may have its own benefits to some people.
but sell LN on its own separate network benefits
however trying to pretend that LN is bitcoin and then pushing narratives that bitcoin should not progress and instead people should be persuaded to go off the bitcoin network and use alt networks as a solution.. is not helping bitcoin

i still laugh at the old narrative
'2mb is bad the network wont cope'
'4mb is good.. but more transactions in that space is not good'

the game of that narrative is to make bitcoin the currency of the rich commerce of banks as their settling currency. while users play with funny money on lite wallets
so LN fangirls.
you can actually make a success of LN and actually adopt more people. if you just tried to be honest about its differences, it own features and limitations.
yep people actually trust things more if they are atleast told the truth about its limitations and risks.
so stop pretending its as secure as bitcoin. but doesnt even have a network wide transaction validation method that bitcoin has (blockchain)

actually try to mention why LN is not bitcoin. and what makes it better/worse. then when you finally start being honest with people you will find your niche

Caring about the network takes the form of not being reckless and trying to push those who secure the network away by draining their resources and overburdening them.  You are the greedy narcissist who believes other people should pay the cost of scaling and repeatedly espouses the absurd notion that only big businesses should be able to enjoy the privilege of running a full node and that regular users should only have the option of SPV.  You don't care if your selfishness centralises the network.

Anyone who has a strong understanding of how Bitcoin actually works will understand why none of your desperate attempts to undermine Lightning are in the best interests of future users or the network itself.

Most people either say LN is good solution or it's bad/scam solution, but IMO LN is good solution on very specific case.

If you regularly make micro-transaction to same person or routing your micro-transaction through same person, then LN is good solution.
But for those who make transaction with big amount money or rarely make transaction, regular Bitcoin transaction is better option.


You mention both pros and cons at same time.

Since LN transaction works to allow numerous transaction outside of the main blockchain, that means only very few people what kind of transaction you made and what kind of transaction you route.

i only use BTC. years ago i used LTC as well but i dumped thousands of them in giveaways years ago. i want btc to grow and extend its utility
however doomad is happy to advertise alt networks. because LN is an alt network.
its not even limited to bitcoin so it offers NO unique feature to bitcoin. anyone can lock up litecoins or vertcoins and then play with LN. thus reducing bitcoins unique features/abilities.

doomad knows this but he doesnt care about btc's longevity. he just wants people to lock coins up with custodians and while people play around with other tokens on other networks while all the real coins are playing in his favour and he gets to keep them.

much like how banks gained the gold while people played with bank notes
next phase of the scheme is to get the banknote/token players to not want their gold/btc back at the bank/custodian account/session close... by offing 'swaps' for silver/ltc and copper/vertcoin. which come with cheap near free exit prices

doomad cares nothing for btc network. he just wants the commercialisation profits

doing the math on transaction:byte ratio in 2009 the transactions were lean 221 byte average. obviously with more novel scripts it hit a peak of 600byte average per tx. before 2017 it never exceeded a average amount.
yet infebruary-april 2018 the average hit 800 and the overal average for 208-19 was above 600
bytes per transaction has increased. not decreased

heck there still has not been a day that has exceeded the 600,000 tx a day estimate (note: 7tx/s 2010 estimate)

as for the scripts/nrratives of it being about data.. devs want to surpress the transactions('no coffee transactions please') under the fake ruse of data. yet they denied 2mb but then stupidly allow 4mb for their bait and switch scripts

it is all funny but it becomes too obvious when certain people are advertising alt networks as the key to user experience

I agree with you, Lighting Network is good solution. It will help Bitcoin to quickly and lower fee transaction.

Lightning Network is a protocol that expands and speeds up blockchains. It is designed to address some of the technical limitations of the Bitcoin Blockchain, but can be implemented on any blockchain. The Lightning Network was presented as a potential solution to scale Bitcoin for millions of transactions per second and reduce the cost per transaction by only 1 cent.

Would it be technically possible to implement the LN protocol into the BTC protocol? I think that as long as these are two separate protocols on two separate networks, LN will not be able to succeed. The fact, for example, that you need to get two different wallets, transfer BTC to the LN wallet, open channels, etc. is a pain in the neck. The advanced user might understand how this works, but regular user can't give a damn.

The biggest advantage of LN is the ability to increase the transactions per second figure of Bitcoin. 1 million transactions per second is possible with LN.

The best advantage, in my opinion, is ability to send only 1 satoshi to anyone who can accept it.

If bitcoin wants to compete with banks and their payment networks we need solutions like LN.

Pros are very clear:
- Much cheaper to transact
- Allows also a fast transaction

Cons:
- Transparency and security is far more lower. Since LN transaction works to allow numerous transaction outside of the main blockchain.

Speaking of embittered sore losers and/or altcoin shills who are still kicking up a fuss about Lightning, look which two users suddenly appeared in the topic almost a minute apart.  Almost as though it was a coordinated effort on their part...

*narrows eyes in suspicion*

Lightning isnt even an ingrediant for a cake.. its the cracker you nibble on while you wait for the cake to rise.
problem is the chef forgot to put he cake oven on. so your left nibbling on crackers

crackers are a snack that can go with anything. its not limited to only cake

its the thing that distracts some people hunger while they wait for the cake to bake.. and wait and wait. basically devs are saying stop arguing about the cake just eat some crackers.

a cracker is not a cake a cake is not a cracker

Lightning Network is a solution for faster and cheaper transaction, a new solution that has been on the air for a long time that hasn't been on the ground for application. Some people say it is not good because it does not support any offline transfer although it is a new technology, whether it does not support that it is possible to have that kind of feature in the future.
As I say, one beneficial characteristics of lightning network is, it increases the handling transaction of a coin example bitcoin, you can have faster and cheaper transaction with bitcoin using the the lightning network. But aside from it does not handle any offline support, one major thing that is off for lightning network it has a problem when it comes to tracking and tracing.

The reason is simple - they hate Bitcoin because they are supporting one of the shitcoins, and Lightning Network will make nearly all competitors of Bitcoin obsolete. I literally never saw a single Bitcoin supporter who would opposite Lightning Network - almost all of them agree that it's the right way to approach scaling, and at the very least people agree that even if it will fail, it won't affect the Bitcoin protocol, so it's a pretty safe thing to try.

Lightning network is just for small transactions and they still developing it to improve as much as they can. they started the developments not too long ago that's why we see some bugs and lacking some important stuff. however, if they fully developed this technology into the like of XRP, then Bitcoin will no longer have the problem to become the main payment system of the stores worldwide. Some important information is here on this video if you want to learn more about Lightning Network.

Why Lightning matters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3HulqfzyYE

What do you think is one of the biggest problems in front of Bitcoin? According to my theory, transaction speed. He is working on this in Lightning Network. It is not possible to know exactly whether they will be successful. But it can certainly be a useful work for the future.

Lightning by itself isn't a "solution" to the scaling question, it's just one of the many ingredients being worked on that help towards that goal.  Given that SegWit allowed for slightly higher on-chain throughput, anything else that can allow additional throughput without centralising the network, such as efficiency savings and off-chain ideas are now being given higher priority.  Once those methods are exhausted, then we can look once again at on-chain increases if necessary.  This method is widely considered the most responsible way of moving forwards.

I'm personally convinced that all the people who still choose to raise a stink about Lightning are just embittered sore losers (and maybe a couple of forkcoin shills thrown in the mix, too).  They took their own opinions far too seriously and still aren't willing to compromise and accept the fact that they share this network with other users and don't get to have it all their own way.  There is a cost to be paid when on-chain throughput is increased.  So until those securing the network are willing to bear that cost, the sore losers are going to keep whining about it.  They have no valid arguments to counter the issue where they generally want other users to pay a cost they probably aren't willing to pay themselves.

As I've recently commented in other topics, Lightning on mainnet is only two years old and very much under active development with many aspects still subject to change.  It's not considered "production-ready" to on-ramp the general public yet.  Right now, I'd say its intended audience is largely what tend to be called "power users", or people with a strong technical understanding who know exactly what they're doing.  But over time, as it evolves and the software improves, the learning curve will get a little less steep and it will become more beneficial for the average user to take advantage of.

Solution to which problem specifically?

There used to be a clamor for Bitcoin to finally function as a real money, one which people could use to buy a cop of coffee without the need to pay a fee which could even go higher than the coffee itself and without the need to wait a considerably long time. If you are referring to that, I guess this is it. Micro-payments is what LN is especially tailored for.

But if the transactions involve huge remittances across countries, I guess you better stay on-chain.

Either way LN is optional, you can use it or not if you want. In my opinion, i should not be used except in the exceptional circumstance that you need an instant payment. Most payments don't need to be instant, people commonly wait hours or days for wire transfers.

And, it is currently not recommended for large sums (and may not be desirable for that anyway).

I think Lightning Network can bring bitcoin to the whole world because with LN network and apps on it, people will have faster transaction speed and they will feel more comfortable in daily usages. Now, we have some platforms accept deposits after 1 confirmations so it takes less or more than 10 minutes to have visible balance (depends on how luck that user is and the time between two blocks of bitcoin). Let think of 10 minutes for one confirmation, in theory, people do feel not comfortable. LN can solve it but till now it has not yet fulfill its goal.

The future of cryptocurrency depends on to Lightning network. Lightning network is a new technology and they are still finding bugs and problems and solving them. Lightning network is still not ready to handle large scale transactions. In lightning network, the real funds are frozen while the value transacts. I'd say there are not any disadvantages with the LN network, just some problems to get solved.

Here's how Harpeet Singh Gauri puts the advantages and disadvantages of LN

Pros of the Lightning Network

Lightning network was invented for speed and lower costs. Although the degree of increased efficiency is still to be known, Layer 2 solutions will generally enable a significant increase in transactions per second Micro payments can be carried out with better efficiency with the lightning network and it will be instantaneous. Lightning network has also started support for altcoins making it horizontally scalable The initial transaction fees in this network are cheaper compared to that of the original bitcoin network Lightning network has the same security as Bitcoin’s main chain while keeping transactions in the layer two till the time they are settled on the main chain.

Cons of the lightning network

Major criticism of LN is that the parties will have to have “fund” the channels. If I shop at a coffee shop, I will have to have so much funds in my channel that connect me to the coffee shop. These funds are just lying dormant until the channel is closed and transaction registered on the main chain – which costs money. A major drawback of the lightning network is that it does not support offline payments. This is an issue to users who do not have internet connectivity 24 hours in a day. There are some experts who believe that Centralization might be encouraged in the payment portals. This makes it quite similar to miner centralisation. Since these transactions are sent off the chain, they aren’t tracked by the main channel, leading to privacy concerns. With all points in perspective, Lightning network serves as a brilliant alternative at this point for Bitcoin transactions.