Topic: Why is SegWit and LN adoption still low today? (Read 533 times)

I guess that the LN is just starting to blossom. Fortunately, SegWit adoption is growing at an unprecedented rate paving the way for LN's widespread use in the not-so-distant future. I believe developers would need to work harder on making LN wallets more friendlier to the end user. Only that way, mainstream adoption for the LN will increase at a fast pace. To my surprise, several crypto companies and startups have started supporting the LN. But the "Layer-Two" scaling solution is still behind on-chain payments.

At least, SegWit provides a relief as it provides a discount in fees for on-chain payments. Most BTC wallets nowadays support P2SH and native-SegWit (Bech32) addresses. Even some exchanges have begun accepting SegWit payments, which is a good sign. I have to say that the LN has quite a lot of BTC locked in HTLCs (Hashed Time Locked Contracts). This shows us that there's a huge level of interest/demand into Bitcoin's "Layer-Two" scaling solution. The LN is still experimental, so it cannot be used for large amounts of Bitcoin.  Rest assured that developers are working hard to make LN as secure and resilient as possible. One feature I look forward to is atomic swaps. This would completely revolutionize crypto trading as people will be able to quickly trade from one crypto to another without the need for a decentralized exchange or a third party. Submarine Swaps is also a great upcoming feature for the Lightning Network (LN) which enables users to exchange from Bitcoin to LNBTC in a seamless manner. Slowly but surely, LN's adoption will grow until most businesses and customers use it for micropayments in the mainstream world. Once the LN is stable for mainstream use, Bitcoin would've achieved massive scalability in the crypto/Blockchain space. Just my opinion

Wrong.  Guess again.

The factory and payment pool ideas might be conceptually similar, but they're not the same thing.  Not that I'd expect the master of pseudoscientific technobabble to be able to tell the difference.

You don't need to be using LN to utilise the advantages of payment pools.

if your talking about taproot 'payment pools' well thats what the 'factories' in LN will be using
not to pay out to individuals. but to get individuals to deposit funds into this custodian(pool) and then the custodian uses taproot so that when the timelocks expire they can settle the channels. broadcast the taproot contract on the blockchain, and create new channels all without revealing the individual amounts each holder has on the blockchain

the issue is these contracts are very bloaty. and gmax knows this which is why he wanted to extend the 'witness' area so much(pretending 4m is still 1mb cludgy code)

the stupid thing is if a user just wants out. and is unco-operative with the 'pool' then the hidden funds get untangled and all is revealed for that user to claim whats theirs independantly.

so the whole purpose is to keep funds in and just using the blockchain to close-reopen channels.
meaning its only a success if people never want out.

talk with the devs is to offer people alternate currencies like LTC as their 'get out' so that it does not harm the taproot contract of hiding the true individual values

other devs are thinking of this factory/payment pool concept for their own private 'reserve banking' between exchanges and not on the main LN.

but payment/coin pools have been a idea(factories) for a while now and its this kinda crap where the individuals become relient on pool/factory managers/custodians. while also turning the blockchain into an unaudible cludge of misrepresented data. that will harm bitcoin

Because "true" bitcoiners hates innovation and they think that everything should be as designed by satoshi

From my understanding, LN is aimed at micropayments. Those don't really exist in BTC yet, partly because regular BTC payments are too expensive (which is what LN is trying to solve) and partly because BTC adoption is not there yet.

Day to day you buy food, groceries, gas etc., and very rarely can you pay in BTC. When that changes, then LN should thrive.

depends what you mean by "adoption"

if you look at blocks, then sure, every possible way to measure it shows somewhere around 50% of each block is a segwit spend


But, if you look at the complete blockchain, i.e. every 18 million BTC, only 3.5% of addresses are bech32 (native segwit). There's probably much, much more using the script-wrapped segwit, but it's impossible to know how much it is because the script is wrapped, lol (when you look at spending, when the script is necessarily unwrapped, script-wrapped segwit addresess are usually sending double the number of transactions that bech32 are)

With LN, sure we're in the early days still. There was another layer 2 idea floated recently called Coin Pools, anyone see that? Sounded interesting, still didn't check the detailed information about it.

I was wrong to think that SegWit adoption was low. Upon doing a little research, I've found that adoption has been increasing faster than I've thoughts. Now we have most exchanges and wallet providers accepting SegWit payments through native SegWit addresses. What's left is for Lightning Network's adoption to grow, in order to reduce the burden on the main Bitcoin blockchain. I believe that most people are still performing on-chain payments due to their ease of use. It's no secret that one needs to have a certain level of technical knowledge to be able to use the Lightning Network for everyday payments. This will affect mainstream adoption of Bitcoin's "Layer-Two" scaling solution as we know it. Developers will need to improve user friendliness in order to make people's lives much easier when using the LN.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't worry too much about LN's adoption since Bitcoin is still working as intended. Those who want lower fees and faster transaction confirmation times could simply resort to Bitcoin-based forks with an increased block size capacity (mainly Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV). Scaling Bitcoin is something optional that would help contribute towards its adoption worldwide. As long as Bitcoin remains decentralized, nothing else matters. Just my opinion

I don't think I'd call most transactions being SegWit low adoption lol.

For the lightning network, growth has been slow, that's for sure. I think it's simply because of the difficulties of running a node and understanding how lightning channels and pools work.

There also isn't really any major retailers that accept lightning, and only a few exchanges accept lightning deposits—and this is still one of the main reasons why anybody would be sending BTC, to trade it on an exchange.

Until we see more places accept lightning deposits, growth will continue to stagnate.

there he goes again confusing LN with bitcoin
i was talking about your endless crusade about stifling bitcoin by wanting bitcoin totalitarian and telling people to "f**k off" to other networks if they want their 'freedom'

LN is a different network.

Can't tell if you're lying or just plain stupid.

LN has multiple dev teams.  ACINQ, Elements, Lightning Labs, etc.

Pretty sure Elements is the one you're not fond of, as they seem to be focused more on the corporate and custodial side.


//EDIT:
If you want to continue your ongoing grievances with a particular Bitcoin dev team, kindly find another topic to do that in.  You don't need to derail every LN topic to take pot-shots at the Core devs.  Obviously you have an overwhelming compulsion to keep doing it, because of your broken mind not being able to comprehend why your conduct isn't approrpiate, but I don't see why anyone should entertain your bullshit anymore.

Surely even a moron like you could comprehend that joining a discussion about the Lightning Network and then chiming in with talk about there only being one dev team could be confusing for the uninitiated.  Now stop shitting up the thread with your petty vendetta.

In my opinion, SegWit adoption cannot be called low, because if you look at the development chart, SegWit adoption is slowly increasing.
Even from 8 exchanges and the wallets that I use today, 7 of them already support SegWit. So for me SegWit adoption is already high.
SegWit is in high demand because it makes transactions faster and cheaper than legacy systems, which are more expensive and slow.
Regarding Lightning Network adoption I agree it's still low, because it's still new and some people who use the Lightning Network lose
Bitcoin. So risk using Lightning Network is still high.

doomad wants just one dev group being the authority.. yet calls me the totalitarian
doomad says that the communities wishes dont mean nothing and the devs are the only decision maker. and he calls me a totalitarian
doomad gets angry when i reveal LN flaws. but he calls me the troll

i guess if i said cars can cause car accidents he will say i am some anti-car troll.. no im just stating the facts of the issues and risks so people can learn more about safe options. and not just go full speed into situations they are not prepared for

saying the only way to use bitcoin is via LN is doomad saying that bitcoin has faults and LN is superier
(idiot)
saying that people are actually handling btc on LN is another idiotic statement of his

again LN HTLC are 12 decimals.. bitcoin does not have 12 decimals

doomad give up you 2mb is bad mindset of 4 years ago. bitcoin devs have already said 4mb is ok. they said 4mb bloat is ok 4 years ago
its just not utilitised to allow 4x tx compared to the 1mb space. which is where devs went wrong with bitcoin

saying bitcoin should be used for the batched tx of custodians and users should use litewallets and handle millisats on other networks. is the same exact game as banks vaulting up peoples gold and handing them bank notes to circulate. slowly aggregating it so people slowly lose actually holding gold. where they are offered to exchange bank notes for scrap metal coins

its not that opaque whats going on. its very transparent and doomads anger that i have not converted to his mindset reveals how deep he is in the banker model
saying to people to 'f**k off' the network if they are not happy.  or use another network to get what you want is doomads 'freedom defence' where he doesnt want the community actually wanting bitcoin improvements

but reality is bitcoin(the actual bitcoin network) should innovate the bitcoin network. not be trying to push people to other networks.
if devs cant innovate or decline wanting to innovate the bitcoin network. then they can be replaced. oh wait. totalitarian doomad wont want his fangirl idols being replaced. he wants the devs that only innovate to make other networks look worthy(facepalm)

by the way. terrabyte hard drives are cheap. we are not in 2010 we are in 2020 so stop playing the 'it will centralise the network because expensive harddrives' that got debunked ages ago.
we are not in the 1g/56k internet days. we are in the broadband/fiber/5g era

actually making it slow(transaction count limitation) and expensive for normal users(high fee's) to make transactions and telling them to go to other networks will cause more centralisation where only servers are the full nodes of bitcoin. and people are using litewallets on their phones connected to watchtowers and factory servers that manage(bank/custodian) the real currency
but you will never talk/admit to that fact

That's certainly true, mate. Transitioning from legacy systems to modern ones is not an easy process. Some crypto service providers prefer to deal with legacy Bitcoin addresses because of the already-established infrastructure. Despite the fact that the majority of Bitcoin users are still in the legacy system (AFAIK), SegWit adoption is rising at a slow and steady pace. I think that within a couple of years from now, the whole Bitcoin network will be running on SegWit (almost).

As far as the Lightning Network goes, it's still an experimental Layer-Two scaling solution for Bitcoin. This means it's still not ready for use in the mainstream world. Sending large amounts of Bitcoin to the Lightning Network will turn out to be extremely risky to the end user. I guess that this (alongside a steep learning curve) is what has made the adoption of the LN so low these days. I'm still confident that we'll get there someday as the LN develops over time. There are a lot of channels open and lots of Bitcoin are locked on the LN. It's a good sign that it'll grow in mainstream adoption over time. But it's up to the developers of the Bitcoin project and the community itself, to let the world know about the true benefits of SegWit and LN. Otherwise, people will continue to use legacy Bitcoin addresses and on-chain payments which are expensive and slow. Now that numerous crypto companies and startups are making use of SegWit more thoroughly, it should only be a matter of time before adoption goes all the way to the moon. Just my thoughts

They also don't want unscrupulous liars misleading them by dishonestly equivocating that using LN on Vertcoin is going to be the same experience as using it on BTC.  The FACT is that those experiences will be nothing alike and it is incredibly disingenuous of you to say in every single LN topic that has ever been started on this board that it's the same thing.  Stop trying to talk about facts when all you have is misinformation, you repugnant troll.  You're already banned from one subforum due to your conduct.  Keep up the sterling work and hopefully one day we'll be rid of you completely.



Devs are looking into lots of options.  I know you aren't a fan of freedom, being a totalitarian fascist like you are when it comes to things like open-source development.  But please keep in mind the the decisions aren't yours to make and anything that provides more choice for users is welcome.  The option to deposit funds into the custody of a third party will always be a choice, not a requirement.  But you're always too busy trying to spread FUD for inconvenient truths like that to be acknowledged.  Funny how we don't see you wading into every single topic about exchanges to discuss the pitfalls of custodianship, where there is no other choice.  I guess you just can't help being duplicitous.  At least LN will give people the option.

If the ability to transact peer-to-peer without middlemen in LN is ever removed, then you can realistically claim that devs have "abandoned" the hop model.  Until then, you're just being a compulsive liar.  When are you going to tone down your anti-salespitch to make it at least vaguely truthful and not a load of mindless drivel that's easily debunked.  The more you do this, the more it makes you look like a raving proselytiser for an old, dead religion.  

If you ever want BTC to be used as a currency, LN is the most efficient and sensible way to achieve that goal.  Give up with your "double blocks faster" mindset that should have died out 4 years ago.  That outdated concept will never scale efficiently and would cause massive centralisation if it were ever attempted on a non-shitcoin that people actually use.  

doomad i know your a LN devotee and trying everytime to really promote LN. but people want actual facts of the issues. not the salespitch promotion

its good that your starting to tone down your salepitches. but you have a long way to go.

what your not realising is the 'banker model' at play. well maybe you do realise it but dont want to talk about it/admit it

the banker model is like this
having independant 'users' with channels for a 'hop model' of routing wont come to fruition. devs are looking more to the lite wallet version for users where people deposit funds into factories/watchtowers and have those custodians then manage the channels as full nodes. (hub and spoke model)

with the devs wanting an ever increasing fee onchain(something even you have promoted as a thing you desire too) the next game is to tell people its going to cost $xx to settle a htlc back to btc or they can settle it to ltc for $0.X.
this is how bankers told people not to take their gold home but instead keep the bank notes(HTLC IOU) or convert to another currency

so atleast please stop saying LN depends on users being routes. because users wont/shouldnt be locking up huge hoards to be middlemen, especially with the many ways that people can abuse the features of LN to make users lose funds

devs have abandoned the hop model and are now concentrating on the banker custodian hub and spoke model
so try to atleast be informative about LN and not promotive about trying to sucker people into it

Can utilise.  May not actually utilise in practice, though.  At least not yet.  Network effects mean that it simply isn't viable to use LN in a practical fashion unless there are enough users to make payments to or route payments through.  LTC has a little bit of LN usage.  But most other LN-capable alts have negligible usage.  Good luck finding someone to pay on those networks.  I don't know how many more times you need this point reiterated before you stop repeating the same nonsense in EVERY SINGLE LN TOPIC EVER like a braindead parrot.

LN is primarily a Bitcoin feature and will be for some time.  LTC may catch up at some point, but I have a sneaking suspicion most of the other LN-capable alts are never going to get out of the starting gates.  There simply isn't enough interest in real-world spending of those altcoins.  You're living in a dream world, as usual.

doomad still trying to claim LN is bitcoin

LN is a separate network that different courrencies can utilise
think of LN as visa.. not dollar.. but visa
its a network to use a digitised symbolism of dollar on and also pounds and yen. but its not actually yen, not dollar, not pounds

those pounds,yen,dollar are locked into vaults and whats being played around with on the visa/ln network is another unit of measure

LN has 12 decimals .. bitcoin only has 8
a HTLC is the 12 decimal unit that cannot be broadcast to the bitcoin network
the HTLC are aggregated at the end of a session into a proper bitcoin transaction
even at the session end the proper bitcoin transaction is not guaranteed payment as it has not been confirmed yet

EG
i just wrote a tx giving doomad 10btc.. .. he didnt get it because i didnt broadcast it and it didnt get confirmed. thus. its not his 10btc

handing a cheque to your wife is not paying her. because you can then ask her to rip up the cheque and give her a new cheque. or spend the funds in your bank before she cashes the cheque

a true dollar/bitcoin payment is when it has cleared/confirmed
just like visa settle up with the banks each day your 'pending balance' is not the true balance its a possible balance. you have to wait for it to finalise before you know for sure

the main issue with not understanding LN is when some particular people try to oversell and under promise LN and try to claim that it is bitcoin and that its just as secure.

LN is not bitcoin. just like mastercard/visa is not the dollar. yes its a multicurrency tool that can be used to do things faster than handling real currency. but dont define it as the real currency, as that is just misleading

if its not on the blockchain. it didnt happen.
if its not confirmed as your sole ownership. it aint yours

emphasis: even the LN devs themselves have lost funds on LN.. and they meant to be the experts

last fun fact to note
sipa, (the inventor of segwit) still asks for donations on a legacy address. even with many years and opportunities to update.

I'm honestly not expecting LN adoption to be that high yet.  At the moment, a large proportion of users are either accumulating and hodling BTC, or storing their BTC in an exchange in order to day-trade.  They simply don't have a regular need for cheap transactions.  At the same time, LN is still relatively new and experimental.  Some clients still have a steep learning curve for casual users.  People who are inexperienced with Bitcoin may find the user interface and general concept difficult to understand.  

Once BTC progresses to a stage where a larger number of users are actually spending their BTC like a currency and merchant adoption is also more widespread, there will be a greater incentive to use LN.  And by that time, hopefully all the various clients will have simple and easy-to-use interfaces that even the most ardent technophobe can comprehend.

I disagree with Segwit's low adoption, I can show proof from blockchair.com chart Segwit address usage.

It shows in the chart that from the beginning until now there was an improvement of usage. There is also 66% after BitMEX embraces upgrade.

About the Lightning Network or LN, I think the adoption are very slow because this might very hard to imply and for the non techy people usually don't try with this rather than they might get sucks their Bitcoin. All I can say, it needs more time to understand this LN to the crypto enthusiasts.

I am one of those who disagree with the opinion that SegWit adoption is still low, because it is based on the results of the survey
I read several articles on the internet, state that 80% of exchanges and wallets support SegWit. Then regarding Lightning Network
adoption I agree that adoption is very low, especially for merchants. Probably because the Lightning Network is very complex and
still deep the process is under development, therefore most of the people who adopt the Lightning Network are advanced users.