Topic: Why is SegWit and LN adoption still low today? (Read 564 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.

I can say that's a very nice and detailed logical example of what's going on with LN transaction.
And that's the reason why a lot are still hesitant in utilizing the LN network.
They still prefer the old way, but SegWit is now becoming popular.
So maybe LN adoption is still low, but SegWit is growing these days.

the reason is simple
LN is not bitcoin but another network. a less secure network

no one in bitcoin has ever lost funds due to middlemen taking their coins off the blockchain
but people handing funds over to custodians. and then playing with units of measure on other networks/systems allows many oppertunities for abuse

even the LN devs have lost funds while using LN

the point of bitcoin was that people dont lose funds by just closing their client, or getting disconnected or being offline while a partner messes around

LN relies on middlemen and would require people being online and monitoring each transaction and also learning to read raw tx data to make sure they are not signing something they dont realise(especially if you have been coerced to use a specific client the channel partner chooses)

bitcoin doesnt require all this stuff and is more stable and secure be default
when you have to rely on the 'trust' of a counterparty/middlemen (channel partner/watchtower) you instantly know that LN is flawed and nothing like bitcoin

bitcoin is like storing gold in a vault only you have the combination to
LN is having a joint bank account with a wife that has a affair with the milkman and a pool boy where you have to always be monitoring what your wife is doing with the funds and also ask her permission when you want to spend your funds..where she has to send the funds to the milkman and the pool boy and not directly o the destination. thus more flaws/oppertunities of loss

its just not the same thing
also its alot harder for your wife to get to your vaulted gold than it is to grab your bank account funds in a divorce

I would say that the Lightning Network is not well established yet and it is still in it's early stage.
I guess this is why it's adoption rate is low in today's date. Segwit on the other hand is well established and used by many people.
I don't think it's adoption rate is low since most of the people in the crypto community do have a segwit address.
Segwit is cheaper which is why most people tend to use it.

Users aren't either. It's like anything, it has a conversion rate. There are steps between thinking about the idea and using the idea and perhaps the reasonable number of people who have investigated the idea then fell away due to confusion or disenchantment before becoming a regular user. It's not as straightforward a sell as vanilla BTC.

Save for a few sites, most of those using Bitcoin has already adopted Bitcoin, be it native segwit or segwit-nested-P2SH. The adoption of segwit is certainly not as small as you think. The adoption would only increase further when people realise that their fees are much higher than those using segwit.

LN, on the other hand doesn't really have a huge userbase. It's primarily because a lot of the merchants and sites aren't adopting it yet. To be fair, as compared to segwit, it does take a bit more resources to accept LN transactions. Don't be mistaken though, the transaction volume on LN is not that small.

Segwits are still not that popular than you think they are.
Many people are still unaware of it's existence. I take my self as an example, I just found out about segwit just very recently.
A lot are still using the traditional address since it supports all flatforms.
On the otherhand, SegWit and LN are not yet widely supported.

So I guess that's the main reason why they still has slow adoption, unpopularity.

There are multiple reasons for this... The Bitcoin community are very divided and we saw that with the fork with Bitcoin Cash... everyone have a different opinion on how to scale Bitcoin for more adoption and how to increase the transaction speed.

The other reason is that a lot of people are scared of change and Bitcoin is already intimidating and challenging enough for most people.. so to add Lighting Network on top of that, makes things even more difficult.

They will have to integrate the Lightning Network that it is a seamless addition to Bitcoin and not something that needs to complicate things even further. 

Man, if you're careless when typing the address of the recipient then any coins could be lost. LN is not that techy, just a bit 'annoying' since you have to find channel to route your payment. This is why the usage is still not high. Not because it's some complicated high-level code stuff where only the big brain can use it.

This is not true You can send a transaction from a segwit address to a legacy address and vice versa without any problems. They only difference between using segwit and legacy addresses in transactions is a slight change in the size of the transaction in bytes and thus total bitcoin transaction fees.

Well, using Segwit addresses are now in mass adoption because of known wallet that can able to use segwit wallet. The reason probably of slowly adoption is just because the legacy address is not supported Segwit, you can't able to send a transaction to the Segwit address if you are using Legacy address. That is the difference because they are not yet friendly to each other. When it comes to Light Network, --it is very techy stuff, if you don't have enough experience using this sending method, you must be careful because it perhaps lost your bitcoin is just a single snap. That is why people don't use this LN, only those people who already have knowledge on LN usage.

From a personal point of view, Most wallets and exchanges adopting segwit made it much easier for me to get used to it but for the case of LN, I must admit i don't even know how I can use it. If i have been using Bitcoin for 3 year and still have no idea how to set up LN channels and other stuff. Imagine what a newbie is going through 

LN seems a little more technical and requires one to be more enlightened about it before they can use it.
Anyway one of my next targets is learning about it... But looking at myself. I really think one of the reasons why LN is not highly adopted is because of its technicality and lack of enough awareness among bitcoin users. Many wallets and services would help with this by supporting LN just like they have done with segwit

SegWit adoption isn't 100% because a ton of Bitcoin transaction is made by centralized services, and they have this "if it ain't broken, don't touch it" mentality. Plus they don't pay fees themselves, they charge their customers for any network fees, and customers have no choice but to pay them.

For Lightning network, it's still officially in beta and it can be tricky from the point of view of service providers. If the devs rushed it and said it's officially ready to be adopted on mainnet, and then the bugs appeared and people lost money, it would have damaged LN's reputation.

See the thing is SegWit and Lightning ⚡ network both being better options when it comes to fee are not actually well suited for keeping the Bitcoins there for longer period of time since it's not entirely safe , therefore it's good when it used with small transactions and such but it cannot be used without making proper adjustments regarding the security.

There is a reason why it takes time for the transactions to be confirmed.

Plus I do use LN and SegWit very frequently because am not dealing with a huge amount of Bitcoin , therefore for me it's good but for long term holders it might not be safe at all . It all depends on how and for what reason you are using them. I do believe in the future we will see good updates in the network and then more people will start using them.

As we know revolution doesn't happen in one day. Still, lots of peoples don't know bitcoin technology properly even they are using bitcoin. We can see bitcoin hadn't become popular just within a day or year. Its taking time and I believe SegWit and Lighting network will be popular once a time, so it's just a matter of time.

Everyone knows the main reason is the prevention of SegWit and Lighting, 'lack of uses'. Most of the exchanges/merchants still do not support SegWit and Lightning. So even we want to use it due to the nature of exchanges/merchants we are forced to use Legacy or nested SegWit. I think that's the main problem why both of them didn't become popular. We have to wait for more to see its adoption.

DEXes has seen a surge in adoption over the past few months, although this may be partially due to the hype around the DeFi system. Adoption however needs a spark and this might be the one to increase usage in decentralized exchanges.
In the case of LN, it would definitely be a gradual process, making payments is meant to be basic and easy, on both the part of the buyer and seller, the intricacies of LN may be confusing to most people now, but with time and a more streamlined access, it would surely get more adoption.

yeah, i have the same conclusion specially since these days i have been searching for a decentralized exchange and i feel like they too suffer from the same chicken and egg problem. people want higher liquidity and better features in DEX so they don't use them but they can only improve if people use these DEXes!

It's the really really unfortunate chicken and egg problem all over again. Not much people are using LN because not much services accepts LN, and not much services implemented LN because not much people use LN. 😵😵

If we wanted a huge LN adoption spike overnight, make Binance implement LN. I have no doubt there will be a significant rise in usage. But then again, Binance doesn't even have SegWit. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

The sole reason there hasn't been sustained high fees is because there hasn't been sustained high demand. We're getting spikes now and some day soon they may be there for weeks or months on end.

Segwit and batching certainly helps. It also certainly hasn't solved it. We may see fees even higher than last time.

There's still a hard upper limit of daily transactions and it's not all that many. The only way around it is to cough up more.

i believe LN is not yet that popular because of 2 things, first it doesn't seem to be fully complete and there aren't any major businesses such as exchanges that use it so there isn't that much use case for it.
but with all that, LN is still used quite a lot. the network of LN nodes and the amount that has been trasferred in and out of the channels has been high.

as for SegWit the adoption seems to have capped for some time again because some big businesses are still resisting implementation of SegWit in their wallets. like some exchanges that are still creating legacy addresses, gambling sites that do the same, etc.

although i call LN adoption low but SegWit adoption is nowhere near low.

I'd like to comment about the Lightning Network. Similar things were already pointed out, but I want to join these posts and summarize the way I see the problem.
I believe the adoption of the LN is low because there are at least two social groups that don't use it. The first one is people for whom it's too techy to use. The LN is not as user-friendly as Bitcoin wallets, and to reach broader audience there should be a way of using it without much effort. This problem could be solved by working on an app that would simplify things or something like that, but it's been years with little progress in that direction. The second group is more troublesome. It's usually people for whom using the LN is not difficult, but they just don't want to use it for various reasons (it's off-chain, so not really Bitcoin; there are centralization issues).

I know two sources from Bitmex (1 month). Who knows how to expand the chart to months or years, please help.
Lightning Network
Segwit usage

1st reason- Most of the people still use centralized custodial wallet service and they don't know what segwit is and what's the benefit of using segwit.
2nd- There is no promotion for segwit which doesn't make sense too as bitcoin had never any promotion. So a lot of people haven't heard about it yet.
3rd- Some services don't accept native segwit addresses for withdraw, as a result people using such service have to use Legacy or nested segwit which wasn't that easy to create some days ago.

And the reason why some are still stuck with the original btc because of the convenience. But SegWit is actually getting popular here in the forum. If you will see in most sig campaigns, a lot are already using SegWit addresses. So I'd say adoption is going on. Maybe we are not seeing the impact yet but maybe couple of years and we will see the effect of it among crypto users.

Bitcoin itself took such a long time to adopt, so I'd say the rate of Segwit adoption, as demonstrated by many others here, given that is has only been THREE years, is pretty huge. Lightning apps? Google search even turns up a list of top 10 Lightning apps.

We're talking about an upgrade and a second layer tech that has had their fair share of misdirected propaganda and active resistance from service providers. I'd say we're already at a positive rate of adoption given all the hurdles.

Besides, what's the fun of a Bitcoin network without the bloat?=p

As stated, only the people that are living in stone age won't be using segwit. I moved to Bech32 native segwit and never felt happier.
As of LN, it's a much complex topic and maybe will never be considered a solution at current form. It has pros and cons and we can't force the community in something that is not well received by a significant group of members.  LN is an experiment one step further, it would certainly be an idea for further improvements.

3 years ago,when the Bitcoin Core blockchain was stuck with multiple small transactions,the fees were high and the confirmation time was low,SegWit and the Lightning Network were promoted as the solutions of those problems.3 years later,the Bitcoin Core blockchain is going just fine,the fees are OK,the confirmation time is decent.I think that Segwit helped the blockchain to get rid of high fees/slow confirmation problem.
The LN is a completely different case.LN is a not-so-user-friendly,centralized off-chain solution.That's why many bitconers won't trust the Lightning Network and might never adopt it in their business or daily life.

I know some people have their systems still with the legacy systems and doesn't support pure Segwit yet. And I think they are nowhere near changing their systems anytime soon, and that's just the reality. They need the effort to improve systems, and I think it's not their priority right now.

Anyways, personally I use SegWit but not LN yet. I read a topic here that someone lost 4 BTC just because of LN, and that's only one of the reasons why it's not however applied everywhere. There are still factors to consider like it's the bugs, etc. I haven't dabbled deep into it, maybe in the future when it's more stable.

SegWit adaption isn't that bad, but if you think it's still low, you should blame wallet which didn't create SegWit address by default or services which haven't support SegWit yet.


Requirement to make 2 on-chain transaction to open and close LN channel is also turn-off for many people who rarely make transaction.

Like others, I would not agree that the use of SegWit is low, because all research says that more than 50% of all transactions use SegWit. If we look at the following infographic, we can clearly see what it looked like at the end of 2017 when that share was at most 20%, and then in Q1 2018 it jumped to 30%, and since then it has recorded a constant increase.


Of course, it can always be better, but it's all a matter of educating users about the benefits of using SegWit. Instead, some constantly complain that the fees are too high, and at the same time out of ignorance or something else do not use the available technology to pay lower fees.

LN is something completely different, and for the average user something very complicated and still quite unknown. If it is not simplified and brought to a level where everyone can use it, it will remain something for advanced users.

Segwit seems pretty healthy.

LNs are nowhere near smooth or developed or explained enough to tempt most existing Bitcoin users. All the talk of channels, watchtowers, routing. That's going to cause many an eye to glaze over.

I'll guess Bitcoin has three main reasons to move - to and from exchanges, buying the occasional thing, going to another wallet. Hardly any exchanges are offering it, there is a bit of LN merchant adoption but merchant adoption for Bitcoin in any form is not exactly booming, and your wallet is a final destination so lightning networking into it makes no sense as you'd still have another transaction to go.

So far I haven't seen anything that convinces me LNs will become the de facto second layer.

While I agree that LN is still not yet mainstream, I don't think segwit adoption is "low". How did you define it anyway? Where's the source? According to Blockchair SegWit usage has been around 30%+ in the last 3 months[1]. As for the reason, LN is still not yet as friendly as you think imo. You have to open a channel, find route and etc to send your payment. Not to mention major exchanges are not yet supporting it, so the average joe probably don't think they have to use it. That being said, are you one of those adopters or are you also not using them? Why?

[1] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/

It's been around 3 years since Bitcoin adopted SegWit and the Lightning Network in order to become more scalable for the mainstream world to use. Right now, people can enjoy the benefits of lower fees by interacting with native SegWit addresses. The benefits are even greater with the use of the Lightning Network which provides near-instant transaction processing times and ridiculously low fees. While most wallet providers, and exchanges have adopted SegWit, not everyone uses it on the main BTC blockchain. Even worse, LN's adoption is in the ground despite being actively promoted by its supporters.

Is there something I'm missing here? Why is adoption for SegWit and LN on Bitcoin still low today? I'm sure that if everyone started using these solutions more thoroughly, the BTC blockchain wouldn't be so bloated nowadays. Thoughts ?