Topic: The Lightning Network FAQ - page 62. (Read 33287 times)

I did not, that was the point I had to use *BitPay* not btcpay to do it.
Sorry if I did not make that clear.
But, the issue you are having kind of makes the point. It's easy to integrate a lot of payment methods but so many things in the bitcoin world are just more difficult then needed.

-Dave

I have been looking for a btcpay server implementation on shopify and the closest thing I found was this: https://github.com/djseeds/btcpay-shopify-checkout
But orders have to be manually reviewed as they are not completed automatically.
How did you implement it?
Sorry if it's OT but just had to ask.

I will never reply with a good comment about anything that ever comes out of Apple.

But this is where you get into opinion.

I like most of the online restaurant intrgations with Square vs something like beyond menu.
Some people will feel the other way.
But both of them are light years ahead of what it takes to get coinpayments / coingate others to work.
PayPal is 22 years old more or less bitcoin is 10.
15 years ago PayPal integration was simpler then bitcoin is now.

Not picking the 15 year mark out of my ass, I have a website from 2005 that has been moved & updated several times. But the PayPal integration is 99% the same.

You might be a bit cynical, I am too in my own way when it comes to this.

-Dave

examples are scant. usually high-end design software of various kinds are praised for their good UI's, then some management genius decides to either:

1. make that good UI the most expensive option, or
2. get rid of it completely, as if the users weren't good enough for it


but maybe I'm too cynical. tell me an example of a good UI, DaveF (I recommend against replying "macOS")

And using corporate software is no guarantee that the interface is going to be any good either.  Just today, as an example, I was looking for the volume settings in Microsoft Teams to make that stupid notification noise a little quieter.  Abysmal design.  

It's a difficult balancing act.  DaveF raises a fair point.  Ease of use is an important aspect of any software.  But I see the sense in what Carlton is saying as well.  No putting the cart before the horse, essentially.  While Lightning is still relatively new in the grand scheme of things, an under-developed UI is forgivable.  The target audience is primarily still tech-savvy power users.  But over time, probably fairly soon, in fact, it will need to be improved as it begins to attract a larger number of casual users.  It's not the top priority, by any means, but still a crucial consideration moving forwards.  I'm not convinced the problem stems from being open-source, though.

The "problem with open source apps is that they have a bad ui" is kinda funny.

I mean it's not like being open source and being offered with a gui and a separate backend isn't a call to a ui designer to try to look at collaborating on a project.

Tbf I've done a module on ui/ux design looking at heuristic evaluations and peer reviews of other software so I could technically try looking at some applications and doing a he on proprietary solutions such as PayPal (and I think cashapp) but I probably won't be very good... (but I could always make something anyway).

Most systems in cryptocurrency are very expert friendly too so that'd be a tradeoff imo.

You *can* do both you know. It's just requires money and time and some focus groups and some management that can keep the programmers going forward.
This is what people keep missing, how many INFERIOR products have come to market and been dominant because they were more user friendly and simpler to use then the better engineered ones?

-Dave

well, you're both providing a pretty accurate description of the internet itself, circa 1992-97.

you know what the worst kind of software/network protocols are? the ones the focus on UX/front-end before the engineering problems. Your observations only prove that Bitcoin is being developed according to best practices, at least in this facet

I have been saying that for years about many BTC related things.
Wallets, apps needed for processing for business, plugins for websites.
Don't get me wrong, they work. But the level of "fit and finish" leaves a lot to be desired.

I feel the problem is a lot of times the places that spend time & money on a better GUI / easier integration are not always open source because they spent the money and want to sell their product for a profit or make a profit from it. And this tends to generate friction.

Coinomi is a prime example of it going the other way, most people who use it love the GUI, they love the multi-coin intergrataon. Yes, it's buggy, has issues and is for the most part closed source. But a lot of people int he real world think it's simpler to use then other wallets out there.

On the back end I recommend btcpay server all the time for people who want to run their own payment server. However, if you compare that to the amount of skill / knowledge needed to do that vs. adding square or PayPal payments to your website it really is insane. I am not talking install WooCommerce and go (that's simple) I am talking if you need something slightly custom; it becomes a much bigger project. Mainly because the product works very very well, but it was built by programmers who like to program and not run by end users who might not have a clue.

Edit for full disclosure: I *run my own* BTCPay server and for a club I am a member of. But, I still use Shopify for their cart & processing and have them linked BitPay for crypto processing, not because I like them but because they are easy to work with and it integrates well. Could I hack together something, probably. It's it worth the time and effort vs. 1 click an go. Hell no. That is the issue.

Lightning just makes it even more complicated.
Sorry for the rant, but ignoring the issue does not make it go away.

-Dave

I believe the problem with open source projects is that the majority of problem-solvers are engineers, without input from front-end/UX designers. We then get a solution primarily from an engineering standpoint that doesn't look pretty, and/or it's not easy to use for ordinary users.

I agree with this to a certain extent.

Distressed LN user types

• Some people will find the "{route,channel} failed" errors annoying ("don't care Mr. Error, gimme lo feez pleez"), and quit trying
• Others will persist, because using Bitcoin cheaply is something they need to do, even when they don't understand or care about the network errors

But I think an inflection point will come about as improvements to the basic LN node software improves the reliability of the network as a whole, such that the 2 type of distressed users above will no longer occur.


Electrum has always had a somewhat complicated interface, but that's their way. This new release at least puts Lightning into the hands of previous Electrum users who already use it for onchain transactions (and demonstrates the business incentive for wallet developers; you could fund development of your open-source wallet by running a watchtower server for your users). It's also labelled as an experimental feature in Electrum for the moment, you can be quite sure it will undergo improvements in future.


I would also echo @LoyceV's post: other LN wallets exist, and some have a far more simplified user interface (Zap/Eclair, and the Lightning Labs desktop wallet, I forget the exact name)

Try these mobile wallets:
BlueWallet (custodial LN) (see topic: A great lesser known wallet! [BlueWallet])
Phoenix Wallet (non-custodial LN) (see topic: Opinions on Phoenix Wallet?)
Those are the easiest LN wallets I've tried. Just don't deposit more than you're willing to lose.

I think we can find answers in LN statistics and the main one for going mainstream will be merchant/wallets/sevices adoption.


https://lightningnetworkstores.com/stats

As we can see there are actually 382 registered stores that are using LN.

When we look further at https://lightningnetworkstores.com/ site, we will find that there are additionally 30 wallets and 9 services.

Not too much taking into consideration 3 years from mainnet.


https://lightningnetworkstores.com/wallets

For LN to be widely adopted it has to be easy to use and maybe one day it will but despite efforts at least for now it is still way too complicated and buggy.

I have just read @Bitcryptex walkthrough of the Lightning Network support in the recent Electrum update and for me, it is just obvious that 90% of people will never touch it until everything will be working in the background without them even noticing it. Until we have to set up something and additionally the process involves a lot of steps then there is not much hope for mainstream adoption.

Of course, this is only my opinion and I will be happy to hear yours?

The issue with Coinbase / Binance / gemini accepting it is that they get paid for trades, they don't want your $1.83 transaction they want your $1830.00 transaction.
What we need IMO are more bitrefill^* and fold^* like places that make lightning appealing by giving discounts.


I have to look at the logs again but something like that. It was odd because it accepted it, then rejected it but RTL never saw the 2nd part.
As I said, it's on me for not keeping all of it updated. I should probably set some sort of a schedule to do / check for updates as opposed to the "oh shit, this did not work let me see if I am out of date schedule" that I am on now :-)

-Dave

^* Part of that issue is this forum and other places that discourage or even ban referral links. It's just self interest. Think about it, if every time I posted about bitrefill I could post my referral like and hopefully get some BTC you would probably see a lot more posts about them. Yeah, spamming might become an issue but probably no worse then what we have now with a lot of sig campaigns. {full disclosure if you are reading this in the future as of this post I am wearing a paid sig}

I was hoping more established sites (such as casinos and exchanges) would start using it, but it's mainly small/new sites that use it.
I haven't seen a single signature campaign paying in LN either, even though there are campaigns that pay quite small amounts in Bitcoin. Sending small amounts of Bitcoin to many addresses doesn't take that much fee, but using those small amounts can be expensive. LN would be great for that, but as long as it's not just possible to pay several people at once without receiving a payment request, it's not going to happen. Just imagine having to ask 50 people each week to send you a payment request, each for different amounts.

As far as I know LN is still classified as "experimental" and "don't put in more than you're willing to lose". Making payments still doesn't work all the time. Lightning Network Statistics - Bitcoin Visuals shows how LN went from nothing to it's current state in 2.5 years. Even before that, I was looking forward to it already. Given it's slow progress, I'd expect at least several more years to become mainstream. And this will also depend on existing wallets adding LN, and on Bitcoin fees.

It'll probably become mainstream when it starts to be accepted by exchanges..
There're probably people actively researching and contributing to it on exchanges like binance and coinbase (I'd assume) this stuff is probably on them and a few others to start accepting. I don't know what the miner sentiment on lightning is either which could be a reason for the delay.

---

Was it just a standard send to self error? I'm guessing you didn't pay a fee either hopefully...

I want opinions, how long to wait before Lightning surges in usage among the "Bitcoin mainstream"? I honestly believed that 2020 would be the year of Lightning.

Update: All is good. BTC never left my node and there was an error thrown. However, for some reason RTL did not show or see the error.
Going to get off my ass this week and update the entire node and see if it still happens. I thought I was on later versions but I guess I have not updated the daily use node for a while. The ones I play with for testing are fully updated, this one I did not.

-Dave

I get an error in eclare when trying to do it so it might be a problem - otherwise surely itd just say it went through and pay itself.

Does lnd show the funds as gone though? If you know the host of the other node you could ask them to send the same amount to themselves as it could be in the ct on their side.

With the usual I know I should ask on github but has anyone screwed up and paid an invoice to themselves and just had the funds disappear?
I was sending out some money and sending out some payment requests and I copy / pasted my payment request instead of the one I wanted to, and it looks like I sent the money nowhere.
Using LND / RTL

Odd, but before I dig deeper I figured I would ask here.

-Dave