Topic: Will the Lightning Network Solve ALL Scalability Issues? - page 2. (Read 1308 times)

As we progress with this newly invented matter about the transactions in Bitcoin, it's already a couple of years now but the development hasn't announced yet the dully developed and stabilized version of the Lightning network as there are some technical problems that need to be solved. However, the reason we still talk about this thing is, we still have their updates, and their working on it until today. Anyway, this will be the last technology we need and everything will be set and bitcoins will finally get over that big problem of transactions and finally will be recognized as one of the top online payment methods in the world.

I know that you do. You just can't formulate your arguments properly and it looks like you're spiting non-sense sentences. It doesn't matter that you're against the lightning network, this is what I'm saying; you're misleading people with arguments that don't hold water and you insist that others are wrong while they respond you ideally.

That's why you're receiving negative feedback and some mods don't even want you to post. Not because they're against free speech; we just barely make any sense from your messages.

As for the lightning network, it'd be unnecessary to try to convince you. A peer-to-peer money system that works only within a limit of transactions per second can't work globally that way. We have to face the issue from each root. Each user must keep track of their own ledger based on the main's one capacity. No one will ever force you to use it, you can always broadcast your transactions instead of using lightning. I can't deny, though, that it isn't a matter of time until merchants adopt it.

Also applies to the routing amounts. Nobody can tell you which amounts are forwarded and which aren't, unless node operators make it public. Spoiler: Most node operators don't do that.



Still people talk about the problem to send tx worth > 500USD through lightning, which in reality is no problem at all, but it could cost more than sending it on the mainchain.

We were talking about safety, to not lose money, not "sucess for a route from any place of the Lightning Network to any other". This may be lower today, but we're in the infancy of the network. $60 is a pretty good value for now, though.

I believe the events in El Salvador, if the adoption there is sucessful, will show us in a couple of months (from September on) which way Lightning may look like in the future. There will be probably way more non-Bitcoin-enthusiasts than now at least in El Salvador's user base, due to the Chivo wallet airdrop of $30 which provides a big incentive to just try out the technology. This may create the incentives for node operators to increase capacity and may make routing sucessful for bigger payments.

As I wrote in another thread it's too early to draw any conclusions from the current state of the Lightning Network, as we're having still a network of devs and Bitcoin enthusiasts.

I agree here, this is why I discuss some issues with him. For sure Lightning has still problems and vulnerabilities (see here and here) but most are simply fixable bugs, and others can be minimized by caring for a decentralized infrastructure with many small hubs instead of a couple of big ones, and watching out always for sybil attack opportunities.

i understand lightning fully, more than most of these expert-fans

but over the years. it becomes a social drama PR rampage by the fans..
whereby i use one buzzword, they jump straight to knit pick that i did not use the other buzzword of the month. all done to distract/ignore/avoid the point of the context.
 
claiming they can ignore the whole context because i must not know because i didnt use their buzzword of the month(facepalm)

they get so wrapped up and ramped up on trying to find the most minimal grammatical issue to scream about and dismiss the whole context. that i just end up avoiding the buzzword drama and instead ELI-5 using common real world analogies.(laymans)

then they think my layman versions are to be ignored because of lack of buzzwords.
round circle arguments to avoid the context (social drama and very boring)

its funny because
they avoid discussions about funds arnt claimable until they have "secret" of hash160(secret)
they avoid discussions of the inner HTLC messages and invoice.
they avoid discussions about the many ways to break the route midflow. (even LN devs have lost funds)
they avoid discussions of capping out max limit of routes to save entire channel balance depletion
they avoid discussions of the payment success rate

yea a $3 coffee might be 99% success
but what about buying 3 coffees because most people dont drink alone

coupe years ago LN had a dismal 10% payment succesrate with 'folds lightningpizza'
(1500 attempts only 10% success)
and that just for pizza.. not a lambo

but hey i get used to the fan base of drama queens with your overpromises and utopian dreams

oh and if you look at the stats properly.
if you take out the elitist hubs. and just look at the average joe channels. the capacity is not there to have 99% $100-$500
but yea if we then redefine LN as a custodial only manager of ElThree micropayment channels they dont broadcast. then yea custodians can guarantee it.. but without users independance and freedom

just imagine wanting to buy pizza. and out of 10 people only one getting their payment to complete..
... id call that a failed payment system
if bitcoin had that issue in 2009 or 2011. it would never have moved forward
imagine lazlos 2010 pizza demo. imagine if he said he tried 10 times and got nothing.

I think this year will be important for the Lightning network, Jack Mallers is building an incredible App with Strike. He recently published this tweet with the news that the App will have zero fees when its users buy bitcoin.

Also all the eyes of the world are waiting when the bitcoin law begins to rule in El Salvador because the government app called Chivo is built by Jack Mallers using the Lightning network.

More Latin American countries want to follow El Salvador's step and celebrate its success, surely there will be more work for Jack Mallers building apps that adapt to the needs of each of these nations.

I believe that franky1 somehow feels benefited from trying to make others avoid the lightning network. I'm still not convinced from his counter-arguments against the lightning fans in here. I have to state, though, that he sometimes brings in reasonable issues to the discussion.

What I do observe is that he can't formulate them properly, as a result to make no sense and create thousands of meaningless posts repeatedly. That's why he may be hated; because of unjustified “quarrel”.

many altcoins are bitcoin rip-offs
all thats required is not to change masses of code of the altcoin
but to change the first couple characters of an invoice in the LN software.
many LN node software already have litecoin and other coins already coded in.
........
as for you believing that LN is 99% successful for $100-$500
care to show me the latest 'payment success rate' graph

like this one from 2018


as for 2021
seems the lightning network stats sites (removing the elite hub/gateways) shows the median node capacity is only $60 for the general network. channel being less

OK. Now you are presenting your typical ignorance about simple facts. I don't know if you are just silly or trolling. You know what? I put you and your dumb posts on ignore. Enough is enough.

This is indeed the advantage of on-chain transactions. But I view the model a bit different.

Let's compare it to traditional solutions in the financial system. The base layer are bank transfers. It's the most secure layer and the one preferred for big transactions (yes, you have also cash, but in the current system it is more or less an "additional tool").

Above bank transfers you have additional layers: credit card systems, online wallets like Paypal, et cetera. Payments with these means are inherently less secure than "normal" bank transfers, but offer the advantage to be instant.

So in my opinion the comparison - on chain=bank transfer, credit card=LN - is perfectly valid.

OP_IF is an old statement of Bitcoin script which is present at least since 2011.

As I wrote above: it's a >99% guarantee, like a credit card or PayPal payment, which is enough in most cases, and in practically all cases of payments of less than an equivalent of $100 or even $500.

You can't bring up bugs as an argument against a technology. No software would be "legit" then, not even Bitcoin. The only valid argument would be that LN is more complex than on-chain Bitcoin and thus more vulnerable to bugs. But LN is currently in a state as Bitcoin was in 2011/2012, and yes, there is a chance that a fatal bug could happen, like it occurred in the Bitcoin network in 2013 in the transition to 0.8.

If LN is "un-audited", like you claim, this is also not an argument against it, because it can be audited at any time. The rest of your post is about "possible things which can go wrong". But in which software system this isn't the case in such an early state? Above all: is it really riskier to pay via LN than to pay via any centralized processor which can run away with your money?

The post was about altcoins "built on scalability". While my answer would not be as categorical als Maymoney's, altcoins would not directly benefit from LN enhancements in Bitcoin. The communities have to adapt the LN software to use it. And most important: they cannot use Bitcoin LN nodes and much less the Bitcoin-LN-supporting merchants etc., so they have to bring in a whole lot of extra community-building effort.

In the meanwhile the network is clearly growing both in value and activity terms. More and more people are jumping on LN: most of them via simple wallets that avoid the whole LN complexity. The following chart shows that it took three years to reach 1000btc and six months to go from 1058 to 1641. It reminds me how bitcoin started, little by little.

LN is not fixed as a bitcoin feature
LN is a separate network that multiple altcoins can use too

so any niche benefit bitcoin gets. altcoins will too

many have run scenarios.
and here is the main conclusion
people deposit bitcoin into custodians so they can play around with outbound millisat balance on LN phone app.. coz yea who wants to carry around a desktop full node when in starbucks buying coffee

so they play around with millisats in lite custodial apps

and instead of exiting LN back to bitcoin. to avoid onchain fee's that custodians have determined as the channel initiator. users atomic swap to an altcoin and exit LN via cheap fee altcoins
end result custodians keep the bitcoin. and users play with altcoins

its how the banks did it over the last 200 years. grab the gold hand out paper. at the end swap for nickel and copper

To make this quick, “Will the lightning network be game over for the rest of the ALT coins that are borderline built on scalability?” My answer is YES

i have bitcoin. probably more then most
there is no magic that a channel just appears
i have to get an app and ask for a channel to be opened.
if i want to spend i have to fund that channel

(there is a big difference of language between 'dont need to open' and the reality of 'dont need to be the funding initiator')

you can play mind games about how the channel opened but if i have to use another app  which i have to download and i have to request a channel using such app. its still triggered by me even if a 'custodian' then 'initiates' it

i do love it how people try to make things sound magical and utopian,
but end result is the same

if i want to spend coins. using LN.. it still requires a channel. and that channel is not magically existing already. its created by my request. and i still need to fund it

but anyway have a nice day with you "LN solves everything"
its weird that people are sooooooooo determined to say bitcoin is broke and another separate network is the sole solution everyone needs.
even when bitcoin transactions are more guaranteed, and its the other network that cannot guarantee stuff

when the solution is more broke than the presented problem.. its not a solution

LN's biggest flaw. its liquidity.
payment success for micropennies is ok
payment success for 1 coffee is almost ok
payment success for a months worth of coffee is varied and not always ok
                                                          pizza has more issues
                                                          weekly groceries is poor
                                                          house rent is even worse
you get the idea the more you want to spend the less chance you get to spend it

so the LN fan philosophy is to pamper and promote LN beyond logic and outside of moral risk just to get OTHERS into LN for the hope OTHERS will facilitate the fans payments. whilst others then suffer the issues the fans avoid telling them about
the flaw in that philosophy. is more people=more competitions for the route liquidity
EG someone might have 1500,000sat ($450)(split into a a few channels of $150) they want to spend themselves. but they only allow 10,000sat($3) to be spent via autopilot routing of others
so people end up in bottlenecks because everyones using up the $3 route to try getting their $150 spent
..
and no . no one is silly enough to open up their whole $150 to be used by others. as the sub penny fee's of such act makes that channel void of spending in just 50 attempts. but at a cost that wont cover the fees onchain to re-org channels

the part of that world is just getting smaller and smaller that must!! finally use sth (sold!) here, sold as Bitcoin - but ... wft?

Hoping for lot of things, finally some space to settle ( what fee it ll be ?)

Freedom is not here

That shows how much you don't know about lightning. To spend money you just have to send some into your Breez wallet (or get them for free by tipping etc). That's how the world works: Spend some if you have some. If you have no Bitcoin at all, you can't spend them. Still no need to open a channel. And yes, Breez (and other wallets like that) is the solution for everyone.

Edit: is completely wrong. You don't pay for the channel.

no issue calling LN an 'option' for utility. or an alternative. .. but dont praise LN as THE SOLUTION.. as that is trying to push the mantra that everyone needs/should use LN. even when LN is a niche and not a all out solution

many scenarios where LN does not solve things. heck LN does not have a 100%payment success rate for its minimal usecase/bestcase

its niche is very small. and so people need to be informed on its limitations to then make wiser choices. rather then be bombarded with myth and PR that its better than bitcoin

It is not about displacing other projects or ALTS is about an alternative, the LN is always seen as the solution, bitcoin works well as it was created, LN is an alternative to the concerns of the current present and the demands that are presented with bitcoin for its use. I like LN in its alternative.

inbound

accept

..
the other persons question was in general.. 'if i have bitcoin and i want to spend..'
 you mention a "solution" where
i have to pay a company. and they hand me channels so that i can 'receive' upto 0.04btc
i dont think you really understood the situation and requirement
i give you a hint. when people want to spend . they want an outbound solution

oh and a quick search and it shows that breez offers that as point of sale merchant tool
basically its like saying dont worry about bitcoin addresses, sign up to bitpay as your merchant shopping cart

many dont want custodial solutions. and others dont want to spend funds to be given an option to receive
after all wasnt that the point of bitcoin

oh and yea breez is still not a solution for everyone

Answer given 3 posts before yours: