Topic: Reasons why Lightning Network will fail - page 2. (Read 1171 times)

dash seems so solve eg master nodes can afford to brute force to with  hardware

Did you read any of my points?

you have a point there mate,theres no impossible with roger ver as he was against this setting,no matter how much he will spent as long as hes intentions will happens.better get rid of such issues and news as we are scaping from the problem of yesterday

Thanks for the post as it really cleared my mind on situation. I also think that bitcoin will be increadibly useful in 2 years when lightning network installed, many people selling their btc to btc cash is really weird, hard for me to understand.

Sorry, but I had to quote this.

So do you support Bitcoin or don't you? I'm a little confused. I swear that not too long ago you were fudding left and right that Bitcoin was surely going on a death spiral down and "die".

Does that mean our favorite fudster has now become a hodler?

It's one of those things where you just need to give it a bit of time.  Lightning is still in beta and it hasn't even been on mainnet that long yet.  All the stuff that will make it easy and user-friendly will come later.  Also, not everyone has to be using Lightning for it to take some of the pressure off layer 0.  Any payment-channel-routed transaction is a transaction not taking up space in the blockchain.  If all the people using it only have to use up space in blocks when they open and close channels, they could still send thousands of transactions that will never touch the blockchain until the final balance is settled, so that's still going to be less traffic than we see generally.  It all helps reduce congestion on the network.

Scammers such as Roger Ver and Craig Wright are trying to push their BCash scam by FUDding Bitcoin with videos like "How The Banks Bought Bitcoin | Lightning Network", if you haven't seen it, im not going to link it for you and give them more views.

Andreas Antonopoulos made a video in his channel explaining why that video is bullshit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4TjfaLgzj4

Lightning Network will be a success. It will be easy as fuck to use, and everyone will be using it for shopping. Give it 2 years and really nice looking, user friendly interfaces will be all over the world. Steam will be accepting Bitcoin again for their games in 2 years thanks to LN, as well as a ton of other merchants, all of this while still being able to run your own Bitcoin node unlike BCash.

Let all the idiots sell now and stockpile on cheap BTC. In the next 2 years everyone that sold now will kill themselves in regret.

Damn, if this is true I really don't see it becoming mainstream as well. I should really research Lighting Network more in depth.

Have you witnessed the massive difference of the tax you have to pay for the mining fees since the introduction of Segwit ?
I don't really see an major difference after the implementation of LN . The developres obviously looked out for the naive users and the freshmen and didn't make it too complicated to understand . What can possibly be the other way of escaping the previous problems related to bitcoin before the introduction of LN .
Talking about people shifting to other alts , they will sooner or later find the same problems they found with bitcoin without the LN technology .
Immense improvements and developments are being made everyday and i am sure that sooner or later they will come up with an even better substitute .

I did not know about that. It is clear that I need to study much more to understand NL. I hope that more solutions to continue decreasing the value of Fees are being developed since the risk of LN does not work as we wish is very high.

When i first heard about LN and done some reading. Concepts and Ideas popped into my head. They are effectively mimicking the internet and how packets are transmitted from computer to computer without having to be directly connected for Instant Payments! Absolute Genius!

If i was VISA/MC/AMEX or any payment processor, maybe WU, i would jump on quick smart. They could be a Major NODE! earn fees just for routing BTC having channels opened to other smaller nodes.

It reminds me of Blockbusters, imagine if they were creative enough to stream over the internet.

Regardless of what people think, we need TX Fees. When block rewards ceases. Miners are going to need as much TX fees as possible to keep doing what they are doing.

Yes, everyone who's currently working on Lightning is doing so because they don't care about adoption.  

So you think they're just working on it for a bit of fun?  Something to pass the time, perhaps?  Also, saying that all of these "nerds" are working on a scaling solution because they don't care about adoption sounds quite counter-intuitive if you think it through.  Why would someone work on something that could help with greater adoption if they don't care about adoption?  If those people building it shared your concerns, maybe it would be a different story, but as things stand, it just sounds like you're pissing into the wind here.  Either way, whether you understand it or not, they're going to keep working on it.



So we should all give in to your limited perception in regards to how we perceive Bitcoin going forward?  Please explain why we should care about what you can't see.  What makes you qualified to say this is a waste of everyone's time?  I think this is where we get to the crux of the matter, which is where you simply won't be able to perceive the benefits until you understand Lightning a little better.  I can see how it's not the easiest concept to grasp right away.  It does take a while to get a sense of how and why it works the way it does.  But until you're there, I can't give your mudslinging from the sidelines much credibility.



"Small" is a matter of perspective.  While it's in beta, just as a precaution, LN is currently capped at a maximum of 0.16777216 BTC in each channel and 0.04194304 for each transaction.  At current prices, 0.04194304 BTC is ~$480.  There are plenty of places in the world where that's not considered a small amount of money.  It's roughly the yearly minimum wage in Tajikistan, for example.  You sound like one of those "first world problems" people who think that just because it isn't directly of benefit to you, it can't be of benefit to anyone at all.

There is no middle ground man. Yeah sure for some tech nerds maybe who don't care about adoption. But bitcoin either becomes a success or it will fail, simple as that. And with all the current scalability problems I just don't see how adoption will increase

Because it can only process 7 transactions per second, world wide !! Pretty much NOBODY was even using it and fees already rocketed to $65/transaction. Now imagine that bitcoin ever becomes a success and most transactions > $150 still need to be processed via the main net. What do you think will happen?

Everybody here seems to agree, LN is ONLY suitable for small payments. But a system will never work if it can ONLY be used for small payments.

The only "problem" it creates is that you now have a choice which you didn't have before.  There will be times where you might use Lightning because it's cheaper, more convenient, or both.  There will be other times where it won't be those things and you can transact as you always have done.  But even if you aren't using LN for that particular transaction, you might still see a small benefit since anyone who is routing an off-chain payment through LN at the time won't be competing with you for a space in the next block.

No one rational is saying Lightning is perfect, or that it's going to be used for all your transactions.  But at the same time, it's not going to fail either.  That's just the opposite extreme of irrationality.

For the thread as a whole, particularly to the OP, I honestly don't understand why everyone on the internet has to be so polarised about everything.  This thread is just further evidence that people can't even discuss topics without becoming some sort of extremist, which is unfortunate for the community as a whole.  It's hardly ever that black and white, so stop talking in terms of "moon" and "fail", when the reality is clearly going to occupy some happy middle ground.

Very interesting post. I did not know about a lot of the aspects of the LN that you have mentioned here, and I think that is probably the case for many of the others here on this forum. It seems like the LN solves some problems while creating others.

Lightning Network is just getting off it feet! Just like the Internet was in the 90's. IPv4 was the only main protocol to route, we now have IPv6 implemented. Did you know DNS Resolution was a text file that was updated and sent to other computers/nodes?

Who knows, once LN becomes main stream, they may find out ways to implement a "routing table" or "BGP" to help determine payment channels. Payment channels may become more dynamic and can be open and closes freely without incurring onchain cost.

In other words, you can not say "Lightning Network will fail" without understanding all the possibilities of what this concept/technology can do. You really need to think 5/10/15/20 years from now, not what is happening now, else you may as well say Bitcoin is a failure! In fact all Crypto are failures.

Why wouldn´t you use the main blockchain for mid-to-large payments? After all the main blockchain
will work just fine after the Lightning Network is widely adopted and you can still decide to use it
instead of making a transaction using the Lightning Network.

Using a sidechain seems unnecessary if you can simply continue to use the main layer.
For mid-to-large payments the fees are negligible as a percentage anyway.

You don't need to pay $70 for $200 transfer, you are not forced to use Bitcoin if you are not limited by traditional system, you could use LN like people are using Electrum, normal users would connect to LN hubs. you could have $200 when you pay a hub $200, your money is always there for you to spend from, that hub has to be a centralized hub for you to leave your money with them, even if they close their channel, they would fund another one.

Hubs would never block your $200, nobody would trust them if they do. you could even give them another coin, if you don't want to pay a high fee sending your $200 to fund a channel.

Bitcoin or other coins are not fiat money to be used for beer, a nation of 80 Million terrorists could use them and pay the high fees if they could send and receive $200 Million without the thieves in the US blocking their funds.

For micropayments it will probably work better. But for anything above, say, $200 it already might become unusable. And who is going to use bitcoin to pay $200 when they need to pay $70 on-chain fee?