Topic: LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA. - page 2. (Read 719 times)

If you ever learn how to point out the flaws without giving misleading information in the process, then by all means do that.  I don't want this place to become an echo-chamber.  I welcome dissent.  But FUD is not the same thing as dissent.  Funds are not "locked forever".  Multisig in LN doesn't mean they have equal control over your portion of the funds in the channel (a standard multisig wallet would mean they do, but LN makes use of smart contracts).  Funds are never "in limbo", they are always anchored to a blockchain.  None of those things you claimed are true.  There are probably other examples, but I really can't be bothered re-reading the thread to point them out.  But surely, whatever you actually believe, you must know that anyone who understands LN will recognise that those things you've said are untrue.  If you have no self respect and your credibility doesn't matter to you, you're on the right path.  You can't just make shit up and then claim you're only trying to be neutral.  You can't be "brutally honest" if what you're saying is demonstrably false.  Someone will call you out on it.  Plus, it doesn't do your cause any favours.  If people can't trust you, they're more likely to believe the people you say you're fighting against.  Now be honest, did you genuinely not understand that some of the things you've said were factually incorrect (which is something we can forgive and move on from)?  Or are you being willfully insincere and manipulative?

There's a difference between 'balancing the scales' and 'smashing the scales with a sledgehammer and then flipping the table like a total asshat'.  If you're doing the latter, people are naturally going to assume you aren't attempting to be neutral.  That's clearly not the behaviour of someone with pure intentions.  Maybe try aiming for balance for once if that's what you claim you're trying to do.  If I can admit there are some negatives, then you need to admit there are some positives.  Or don't.  I can keep playing this game of whack-a-FUD and keep calling you a troll, zealot, extremist, fundamentalist, etc.  It's up to you.  As always, you're totally free to choose.  But choices have consequences, so choose wisely.  My preference is that you admit your mistakes and we can have a more civilised conversation going forwards.

Also, how would anyone believe LN is the sole future for scaling?  Again, there's Schnorr, MAST, AMP (which, admittedly, is an add-on to Lightning, but still), plus whatever other features I've already forgotten about in the pipeline.  And if we find it's needed along the way, there's still the option of larger blocks.  But aside from larger blocks, what other developments did you have in mind for scaling?  



Again, I don't mind you pointing out genuine faults.  There are actually a few things you said where I agreed, because they are genuine issues.  There are ways in which you can lose funds.  Routing isn't faultless.  Lightning isn't perfect.  It's not ready for the average user yet.  By all means continue to point those things out if it sounds like people are 'all aboard the hype-train'.  Those responses are perfectly valid.  But so much of what you've said is factually incorrect, there's no other conclusion I can arrive at than you being an idiot or a troll.  You need to understand that if I see someone constantly posting things that aren't true, I'm going to give that person a hard time, whether it be about Lightning or anything else.  You don't combat extreme hype with extreme FUD.  You debate using reasoned and well-researched responses.  You demonstrate that you are capable of being neutral and considering both the positives and the negatives.  Show me where you have considered the positives.  There's no evidence of it in this thread that I can recall.  If you can start being reasonable and moderate about this stuff, I'll stop giving you grief.  I don't think that's too much to ask.  

actually i do inform people about exchanges. i even highlighted exchangs that do dodgy crap with false claims of "we been hacked"
i have told exchanges about effective ways to control funds without needing privatekeys on their wbservers.
i have told users to not use exchanges as wallets/banks. but to deposit, do trade, withdraw
i have done alot of stuff over the years..

but what you dont realise is that you only spot something thats seems meaningful to you at the time.
EG (analogy) ever think before buying a car, its unique you dont see it on the streets much.. but as soon as you buy it you start noticing the same brand/model more often on the streets. and you get angry that your not the trend setter you thought you were


when you have put your love and soul into something and made it your dream... you will start to notice when others talk about it or have it mor often..
my point:
maybe its you ignoring my other posts about other content but when you see me talk on a LN topic, you think its all i talk about.. without you realising that it was you that clicked on the specific topic, and if i happen to be on that topic.. suddenly its my fault??

same way you ignore how i laugh and facepalm ver and craig wright.. as its obvious that you think im team cash because you dont see me point out issues of other topics. Ver is not a programmer. and craig wright is a scammer. they are actually both paid by the same investors as blockstream and the whole bitcoin cash drama is just the same drama as the kardashians. two sides of the same family. shown as fighting each other and arguing. but behind the scenes they are just centralising everying into their rich family brand


your too blinkered by the utopia of lightning and you absolutely hate it when people point out its not the utopian advert that garnered your interest in it.
i see many people who see the 2018 utopian propaganda of both LN and bitcoin. by using the now broken ethos of 2009. these people think they have found the fountain of youth, utopia. they thinnk they have woken up from their deep financial sleep and finaly found their freedom..
but then when i point out the issues that need addressing due to devs deciding to stifle the inovation/revolution.. its me that gets the hostility and the devs get to continu to do the shoddy crap they have done.. (facepalm)

my mindset is to be brutaly honest about the flaws to ensure people are not hyped into a utopian dream.. that way 3 things happen
1. issues get fixed
2. people who ar fooled by the utopia. realise early on that its devs that have stifled the revolution and as such also help to push point 1.
3. help people learnearly so people dont learn the hard way and end up just calling bitcoin a gimmick.

p.S
summary
if i see new topics where people are talking about LN utopia. be prepared to see me post in that topic about its flaws. if you dont like it or if you have already read what flaws exist. then instead of telling me to shut up. realise im addressing the utopian believer crowd. and those that do tell me to shut up usually are the ones still believing LN is bitcoins sole future to scaling.
so if you dont like me pointing out flaws. simply move onto another topic

you say they need to know how lightning works. but the glossy utopia leaflet illustrations is only showing perfect scenario..
if there are loop holes/flaws. guess what. people will use them. its fre money they'll get after all. so its not me being extreme to point it out. its me revealing the less then utopian perfect scenario

and here is your mis understanding.

my premiss is not that Lightning should be thrown away.
my premiss is the 'lightning utopian perfect and only scaling option for bitcoin' mindset should be thrown away..emphasis should not be advertised as a bitcoin sole solution.

people need to stop over promoting over promising and treating LN as utopia. and instead realise its
just a side service for a niche user case..
not a feature to make bitcoin great (other coins use it too so its not a unique selling point for bitcoin)
not asunlimited, frictionless easy, decentralised as promised(hint your not going to take laptop /desktop to stabuck so LN will ber server<-lightwallet based, and funds nneed other party authorisation)

and then get the devs to actually care about bitcoins mainnet protocol scaling and bringing back the featurs/ethos that made bitcoin revolutionary in 2009-2013

Riiiiiiiight...  

So, when I point out that your entire argument effectively boils down to:

"Lightning isn't perfect, so people shouldn't be allowed to have the option of using or developing it"

your response to that is:

"If you run some scenarios and make a really long post with pictures and everything, you'll see that Lightning isn't perfect, so people shouldn't be allowed to have the option of using or developing it"

Well, that changes everything.  I'm totally convinced now.  



Seriously, are you blind or something?  I'll use all the emphasis this forum software has to offer, just for good measure:  

I already accept that Lightning isn't perfect.

Is that clear enough for you?  Do I need to make it blink or use a tag like something from the geocities-era of the internet to get you to notice?  I am running scenarios.  I recognise the potential pitfalls.  I acknowledge there are risks.  I accept it is possible to lose funds.  I understand that routing won't have a flawless, magical guarantee.  How many more ways do I need to say it before it sinks in to your head?

The thing I am questioning is not your ability to make increasingly technical posts to explain why it isn't perfect.  I am questioning the premise of your argument.  The entire basis of it.  The part where you seem to think it's a valid argument to say that because there are risks of losing funds and it isn't perfect, that we shouldn't be allowed to even try.  That is a stupid premise.  Bitcoin and the whole crypto movement would never have got off the ground to begin with if people weren't prepared to take some risks.  And risks aren't justification to say we can't do it.  We are allowed to do whatever we like and, providing enough of us agree, no one can stop us.

Look at how many people have already lost untold fortunes in Bitcoin's fairly brief history by losing their password, private key or seedwords.  At any time over the course of the last few years, there could have been an undiscovered exploit that someone used to compromise the security of the network and the whole thing would have come crashing down.  Everyone could lose everything.  Does that mean we should have stopped using and developing Bitcoin itself because there's the potential for people to lose money?  Is that really what you're arguing?  Because it sure as hell sounds like that's what you're arguing.  

There are risks of losing funds if you keep most or all of your money on centralised exchanges or webwallets.  We've already seen people lose everything they had.  But I don't see you vehemently pissing into the wind to say we can't have those.  Where are your unrelenting attacks on third parties in full control of customer funds?  We can keep arguing the toss over exactly how much control users have of their funds in Lightning, but I don't think even you have the gall to claim it's less control than users have with an exchange.  Why isn't that the issue you literally won't STFU about?

If you want a brand new technology with zero risks to the people using it, I suggest you go invent one.  We don't have those here in crypto.  If you want a safety net and someone to hold your hand or give you a cuddle because all this stuff is a bit too scary for you, tough shit, we can't help you.  Run crying to Mummy if you need comforting.  All we have to offer are personal responsibility and freedom.  You do what you want with your funds, you follow whatever chain you want to follow, you decide what risks you're prepared to take.  But at no point do you get to tell us what to do.  We've decided what we're doing.  You can't stop us.  End of.

Quote from: franky1 on July 28, 2018, 07:01:05 PM

sorry but the bitcoin community need to know the stuff beyond the glossy commercial leaflets pretending to be open.

They also need to know how Lightning actually works, which is why I have to keep correcting you when you make flagrantly false claims and totally exaggerate the risks.  When I refute you, I'm doing it because you are taking things to extremes.  I'm merely trying to drag you, kicking and screaming like the total infant you are, back to the sensible middleground.  I'm not saying Lightning is a magical land of rainbows and fairies and chocolate fucking raindrops.  It clearly isn't.  But nor is it some sordid conspiracy to recreate the banking sector, you total crackpot.

If you just approached things from a moderate perspective instead of being some hardline fundamentalist about it, I'd consider going a little easier on you.  Until then, I'm happy to keep ridiculing you.  If it looks, talks and acts like a fool, I'm going to call it a fool.

oh as for asking you to run scenarios. if your rebuttle for refusing to use testnet is lack of nodes (i was being helpful by suggesting testnet so you dont lose real value) you can do it on mainnet. but dont blame me for risking your funds.. or you can grab some paper and a pen and run scenarios using ink and imagination. that way you can quantify as many nodes as you like by simply drawing lines and dots. thus able to run many scenarios without needing to load up thousands of physical nodes just to test things.
so instead of using insults and excuses to avoid running scenarios.. just do it. run some scenarios.

even without mentioning all the diffrent malicious ways to scam people out of funds. there are also no guarantees of paying a recipient. because it relies on everyone in a route to agree.. and everyone in the route to have funding

emphasis again: run some scenarios. dont reply with insults and excuses to explain your avoidance of running scenarios
here ill start you off with a non technical scenario about lack of of just a couple nodes can ruin it for dozens.. or lack of funding of 4 chanels can ruin it for 100 people.
and yes no testnet or main net coins will be used.. just drawings an imagination.. even you should manage to achieve this..


take a 100 node scenario. where each node only had upto 4 channels.
seems someone done one here

imagine each line as a channel where the line is represented as [0.01 <> 0.01] or [$80 <> $80] .. whichever is easy for you

now pretend you are node  number 90(top left)
meaning you have $320 in LN separated as $80 in the 4 chanels and your channel partner and thir partnrs do the same
and you want to pay number 54 (near middle)
how many hops would you need to go through to get to it.
ill save you time.. best routes available have minimum of 8 hops..


yes there are many many routes of 8 hops..
sticking with all of the routes of just 8 hops imagine just 53, 64 made a payment to 54 of $50 an hour ago...

and then run scenarios where you know you have $320 in total of your 4 channels.. and you want to pay number 54 $160
using just the 8 hop routes... oh look you cant
mhm.. you got $320 but you cant pay a person $160 in 8 hops even though you personally have $160 value in those routes
and there are many routes of 8 hops. .. all due to 2 nodes beign either offline or insufficiently funded.


 so next viable route is 10 hops.. imagine that 53,64,55,44 are not sufficiently funded or some are offline.

yes there are many many more routes to it
also think about scenario where node 80 and 91 went offline. and how that would change things.

play around with scenarios like above.

---

then realise the scenarios above are for just 100 participants..

now imagine there were 1000 nodes. how many hops would be needed to get from the top corner to a node in the center.
how many extra channels would a node need to decrease the amount of hops thus decrease the amount of risk of a route not having funds

now imagine there were 10,000 nodes. how many hops would be needed to get from the top corner to a node in the center.
how many extra channels would a node need to decrease the amount of hops thus decrease the amount of risk of a route not having funds
 
now imagine there were 100,000 nodes. how many hops would be needed to get from the top corner to a node in the center.
how many extra channels would a node need to decrease the amount of hops thus decrease the amount of risk of a route not having funds

---

now imagine a network of only 100,000 people.
again thinking about the number of channels needed to decrease the hops required risk.
but then the amount of funds a node has deposited in total (add up the channel funds by th number of channels)

and start to see the other problems of the balance between hop risk and hub risk

dooMad. do you even read the quotes you grabbed as your defense.
read them properly. maybe read them 3 times. look at how they gloss over the issues.
EG
you keep trying to flip the cons into pro's by thinking the world is innocent and will not use a loop hole to get free coins. thats your utopian mindset and not realistic mindset at work.
in a good secure system neither innocent or malicious people should be able to use a loop hole.

as for saying no one should voice an opinion. and its none of anyones business.. sorry but. thats just letting bitcoin stagnate or get twisted into centralisation by just sticking head in the sand and not voicing an opinion..
im guessing your the type that never votes at elections and think no one should vote apart from senators and corporations

anyway

take the bit where you quoted
"The most important difference in my view is that, unlike banks, LN hubs don’t hold your money. Your money is stored in a channel, anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain, and only you can authorize its movement. In any case that the channel counterparty refuses to cooperate, due to malice or incompetence, you can unilaterally close the channel and receive the money back as normal bitcoins."

read it 3 times.. can you see the flaws and loop holes?? .. if you cant, thats your problem not mine

maybe its best you dont get involved in advertising LN as bitcoins sole utopian solution.
because if you cant see the flaws. then you either have not used LN to notice it. or you dont care about bitcoin and just want to pump LN as the only innovation of the future

insult me all you like but you are just digging your head in the sand saying it will be alright in the end is just what they want you to do.

your the type of person thats now of the mindset of:
'if you dont like bitcoin becoming centralised/stagnant and commercialed, shut up and F**k off to an altcoin

sorry but the bitcoin community need to know the stuff beyond the glossy commercial leaflets pretending to be open. to see what bitcoin is actually turned into and what the devs are pushing users into.
if you cared about bitcoin you would not be telling people to shut up and put their head in the sand

No one is denying there are ways in which you can lose your funds, but you're embellishing the risks.  The threat of losing funds is the required disincentive to cheat.  You're criticising the very thing that makes it work.  If there were no revocations in LN, it would be easier to steal funds.  Try learning the basics, perhaps?



Yes, it does sound realistic that you would deliberately use something in a way it wasn't meant to be used at this stage to make it sound like it can't do anything.  Way to be the extremist I recognise you as.  You are fully aware (since you've said it in other threads) that, in the early stages, LN will be most ideally suited for recurring payments to the same recipient, not random one-off payments to 84 different recipients.  Obviously there's no practical way to conduct transactions like that yet with the limited number of users.  

It's also worth noting that if you are using the testnet, that now has fewer nodes than mainnet does.

However, as Lightning usage grows and matures over time, spending in that manner might, in future, start to become a plausible option, depending on adoption and how people freely choose to use it.  Market forces are in action so the outcome is not predictable.  We'll just have to wait and see how it all unfolds (as it's clearly not going to stop, despite your incessant protests).

You really are contemptible if you think that it not being perfect out of the box is a good reason to give up on it.  Particularly if you then use the double standard to claim that other people are saying it's already perfect (when it obviously isn't), when you're the one arguing it has to be all or nothing straight off the bat.



"A certain time" is not the same as "Forever".  If you have spent from an old transaction state, they can issue a penalty transaction and take all the funds.  If you haven't spent from an old transaction state and they close the channel unilaterally while the CLTV is in effect, they get their portion of the funds in the channel back, not your portion.  If the innocent party went offline and the CLTV elapses, the malicious party then has the opportunity to steal all the funds.  You learn LN.

I'm tired of trying to explain it to you, so I'm just going to quote other sources (rather than just making up a total load of bullshit like you are):

---

No one is suggesting it is perfect.  They are suggesting it has a great deal of potential for the future.  As in, not right now, in case you need it explained what "the future" means.  I'm merely suggesting that:  

a) you are totally exaggerating the downsides,
b) you are resorting to outright FUD and manipulation,
c) you clearly don't understand it well enough to be in a position to comment and I'm not convinced you have actually used it,
d) comparing LN to banks makes you look like either a totally ignorant newb or a malicious troll (and it's honestly hard to tell which it is with you).

People are allowed to be excited about new features.  Just because you're a dour detractor, doesn't mean everyone has to share your dismal and bleak outlook.



Again, absolutely none of that is a reason not to develop and improve it.  What?  You spotted something wrong so that means we should drop everything and do what you want instead?  You think that's how life works?  Go ahead and have your little tantrums about it.  No one cares.  

Also, I'm highly skeptical that you managed to have any influence whatsoever on the development process, so I'm going to need someone with an actual reputation to corroborate that claim.



I'm still waiting for you to do that, as you seemingly don't live in the real world.  Again, you're arguing that everything has to be 100% perfect for it to be even remotely acceptable, whilst simultaneously arguing  that the fact it's not perfect (which everyone already knows and understands) means we should abandon it to focus on on-chain features.  On-chain features are being developed.  Stop being a petulant child about this.  Market forces are at work and you don't get to make the call about who develops what.  

Lightning is not perfect, but people are going to keep working on it because they want to.  That's their choice.  Nothing to do with you.  None of your goddamn business.  If you want more on-chain development, go develop something, rather than talking out of your arse and trying to derail legitimate work with your FUD nonsense.  No one is saying it's perfect, drop the damn strawman already.

bitcoin cash is august 2017
"gigabytes by midnight" reddit propaganda has been going on since 2014-2015.. and has been show as propaganda because no implementation that wanted to run on the main net or as a altcoin competitor ever even said gigabytes.. the actual REAL debate was 2mb. and that was a compromise from 8mb. but the core supporters who wanted to REKT any core opposition so it was th core fanboys who were the ones screaming gigabytes by midnight. to drown out the real proposals

again bitcoin cash is august 2017
but any attempt to offer anything else that is deemed as a full validationa and archival node to run on the mainnet and offer an alternative got met with and treated as an attack.
yea Luke JR pretends his client is an independant second free choice of a full validation archival node.. but the hint is in the name of the creator that its still part of the core roadmap..

so tell me one full validation, full archival node solution that runs on mainnet where none of the devs are funded by the same investors as core... and where the nod has its own 'proposals'program that do not sheep cores.
show me the freedom of choice.



gotta laugh that you think raising the blocksiz is impossible..  oh and by the way there are multiple other ways of scaling up the mainnet without losing peoples independant control of their funding, emphasis sacraficing their independant control for convenience, which is only caused by innnovation stagnation to require such sacrifice

and something we do agree on.. not al 7 billion people will use bitcoin. and not all will use it 5-10 times a day
which is another laughing point about th core fanboys screaming gigabyts by midnight because the real debate has never been about a be-all-for everyone coin by midnight...
a one world single currency is worse than fiat
people in reality dont do 5-10 transactions a day.
my mindset is about growth and SCALING. (you know progress over time) to kep bitcoin innovative and feature rich compared to other coins
not halting because something cant happen in 5 hours so it should never happen, to then push people away from using bitcoin

and the other point about the whales.. yep we can both agree those circling around the core team with deep pockets are whales and yes they do have power over the devs to not sway them off th commercial direction the devs have taken since 2013.

.. now.. here is something you dont realise
if people advertised LN in the same mindset as advertising other offchain gateways. where they HIGHLIGHT thats its not the real 100% control technology revolution of 2009-2013, but just a side service for those that need it, but willing to sacrifrce the bitcoin ideology for convenience..
if people then admit they hate it that devs have said btc is broke and cant scale. and instead think.. well maybe that dev is not the one to do it because he might have an agenda
if people actually cared more about the mainnet/ethos/revolution of bitcoin.. and not be defending a certain team of PEOPLE..
then my comments would be completely different.

I may be wrong, but I reckon you used to vehemently defend BCash as the be-all-end-all solution. "Let's just raise the blocksize" and you pointed at how the famous "gigabytes by midnight" claim to sort of point at how it wasn't a problem.

Also, no one is forcing people to use Bitcoin Core. People freely Core as the most used full client software. Again, no one is forcing them. And anyone is free to use any of the other implementations, or create their own and try to convince people to use it.


The actual delusion is in which people think:

1) Raising the blocksize is actually possible (it's not, not if you get everyone on board, which I claim will not happen)
2) It does not centralize

Even if 2) was a reasonably low level of increase centralization due technology advancing, you still have to deal with 1). Good luck getting all the whales and everyone else with relevancy on Bitcoin on board.

first of all. i am not advertising bitcoin cash. thats the redit narrowmindset of if you hate how devs have stiffled and ignored the bitcoin community then you must be group X

i hate the devs because they have stiffled bitcoin core network innovation, ethos, revolution of 20109-2013.
they have not been open to having other teams as reference clients on bitcoins mainnet. hense why i now deem it as the core network because only core want to OWN IT. and all other teams that want to use the network and come up with their own innovations are deemed as attackers of core..
this does not mean i love or want bitcoin cash. this means i hate what bitcoin core network has stagnated into.




you say layer 0 must not change.. dang you either have no clue or you know exactly the commercial advantage of why layer zero has not changed
there are many manyways to innovate the mainnet and scale it up. the devs have ignored it all because they have a over $100m financial burden to push people into using commercial services so that they can repay their investors.
.. oh wait. you thought the devs that invented segwit and LN got paid fia sponsorship/donations.. nope. it was done via investor contracts wher investors hope for returns... now think how can a paid core dev repay their investors if core doesnt sell anything.
the answer is to stifle the core network to pus people into services where investors can make money. think about it(with a critical mind not a core kiss ass defender hat)



as for your 'its delusional'.
kodak said how digital media wont scale up and how they will stick with film media because floppy disks can only handle 1.44mb of photos...... look what happened to kodak

if you want to argue that users cant handle more thn a couple mb of data every 10 minutes.. then you should 'do a kodak', but modernise it.. go tell twitch.tv that streaming video wont work. tell youtube users cant live stream. go tell EA games that online gaming wont work. tell skype. even go and tell netflix that users wont get to watch HD movies.

..... oh wait. users can...... hmm

franky1, your criticism of LN and segwit and whatever else (even if I haven't reviewed them yet) are as valid as the next guy, I have doubts myself, the problem is when you guys are selling BCash as the solution, when it's even worse.

I don't think there will be a way to scale Bitcoin up to a point where even african people in villages can use it, it's just delusional. There would be tradeoffs of sorts in there. If you are ok with some tradeoffs then good for you, but keep these at second layer tiers, this is why the layer 0 must not change, and this is why blocksize scaling is yet another delusional dead end.

firstly you have not used LN.. thats obvious
secondly. in bitcoin you need to push funds to a scammer, so many people will say its the victims fault for not doing due dilegance.
in LN. there are MULTIPLE ways to tap away at someones funds without even having to be a channel partner. and without the victim needing to manually decide to make a payment to someone they dont know.

the LN devs themselves have said there are risks of losing funds.. yes the devs themselves.


you do not have 100% signing authority over btc in LN.. with banks you dont either. even if you think its just you signing a cheque, thee banks can refuse to authorise the cheque(refuse to sign their part you dont see). you also need to pre fund a ledger entry that is co managed.. for LN and banks. unlike onchain where you can push the funds to anywhere you please without needing to find the right routing system (americans call banking system routing numbers.(if thats not enough of a hint). uk calls it sort-code..

right now LN devs are concepting factories (fortknox) and channel managers for when your asleep or offline
..
it might be worth you stop reading reddit and start using LN, and not under the selctively find the merchant you want and only fund $3 to make a one time $3 payment.. but a more realistic deposit a months salary of testnet coins and then try finding 84 mrchants and try paying them randomly over 2 months.(more realsitic to real life scenario)


you are wrong.
CLTV means the funds are not spendable for a certain time even after confirmation onchain EG 3-5 days (ELI-5 like mined coins 100block maturity)
and CSV is where by your counterpart can show a signature and take the funds from you (chargeback) in that unmatured timeframe

again learn LN

seems your stuck at th now 2 year old glossy leaflet utopia image of LN..
maybe you need to start from scratch.. learn things like auto-pilot, factories, managed channels.. but maybe first start with multisig. because it sounds like you dont even know what a multisig requires.


you might want to check your research.. factories(fortknox).. where funds are locked and then allow you to fund channels from the factory. when you close channels you dont settle/unlock to blockchain freeing them up back to your sole control.. . but it just updates the factory 'balance' and then you just use the balance to set up new channels if you have funds available in the factory to do so. thus keeping the funds locked into LN
again do some research.


stop hyping up stuff you have not used or not researched. and then insulting people that have used it and are purely not going to just toe the party line of kissing ass and screaming utopia is near..
the worse type of people are thos that scream everything is great and perfect. as they are the ones in dream land. its better to be open and honest and admit there are issues then promote something broken as if its utopia


funny part is. i have highlighted issus about segwit a couple years ago and the devs after fighting their utopian mantra, eventually twisted their own words and gameplan to then work around the issues i mentioned ..
ask the devs why they didnt release segwit address/wallet utility until way after segwit activation.. then look back to 2016 and my gripes about 'anyonecanspend'

as for lightning some devs have reacted to what i have said and changed their game plan and adjusted a few things..
even now they are arguing about a few things.. right now they have just realised that a few opcodes thee added has rintroduced malleability.. i am laughing mega hard at that.

but what i do find completely irrelevant is people who advertise LN as the bitcoin solution.. especially those saying its great, perfect, the thing bitcoin really needs. even though its obvious those propagandists have not even usd it, let alone researched it.

when its not a feature just for bitcoin. not something that all users will need and for those that dont need it, those non LN users are still stuck. meaning bitcoins issues have not been solved.
by this i mean its not advantageous for people who are not daily spenders or have a good continual 100% guaranteed routeS to all their merchants as and when needed to trust thier funds in channels for lengthy periods


maybe you should use it under real life scenario with a critical mindset, put a blackhat on and act as if you are more interested in finding the holes in it to fix it, then you might get something positive.. instead of pretending its utopia already yet not even used or researched it.. as thats you wasting your keystrookes

have a nice day
and dont reply until you have used it for more then one selective test purchase.
run proper scenarios, research the concepts look at the features. and you will start to see

Actually Lightning network can work with any segwit infected coin. ie: bitcoin / litecoin / groestlcoin
What will the bitcoiners say, if LN becomes more popular using litecoin or groestlcoin than bitcoin.  

LN is nothing more than a virtual banking system, and it can use any coin that activated segwit.
It is not specific to bitcoin only.

FYI:
Groesltcoin is the only one that used a hard fork to make their segwit active.
BTC & LTC only used a soft fork, not enforced by program code.
LTC & Groestlcoin have a much greater Onchain Capacity , so theft from bad time locking is less likely with their coins.

true, but Lightning Network is going to work on top of bitcoin, it doesn't need you to change any of your "ways". you just have to install a new application (an LN node app) if you wanted to use it and if not you can continue your "ways" as before.
and it is already happening, LN has grown huge even though it is still in testing phase.

Some developers have made the following statement indicating the security and privacy of bitcoin;
"According to Decker, each channel can process about 500 transactions per second. Decker also explains that Lightning Network will provide more privacy than online transactions."

anything new is very hard to get introduced especially to bitcoin which is very set in it ways

 Of course, their remarkably probable that will BTC can be employed because of very same selection similar to visa pertaining to installments procedures along with most. Btc seems to have a new lightning rate and also a very good multilevel also along with the technological innovation can be solid ample for you to get your substantial number of deals instantly. Could possibly be natural meats discover exactly the same thing down the road along with substitute will certainly be ready for generating installments method more cut-throat.

I'm really excited about the lightning network either. What we need to do though is to make sure regular users won't even recognize that there is any difference while using it, otherwise it might be too confusing for them

I know LN is a good solution for electronic money (and some blockchain decentralization) ensures everyone can run full nodes without the high cost.