Has Lightning Failed? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

134 sats \ 28 comments \ @CoSatoshi 4 Dec 2023 bitcoin

Someone recently told me that they believe LN has "failed." This is someone I respect quite a bit, though we differ in opinions greatly across the Bitcoin/Crypto space; they mentioned a lack of adoption, but it was kinda loose and ambiguous. I then also recall that recently a well-known Lightning developer essential rage-quit and stated that we need to focus elsewhere, like Ark.

I tried searching SN for a post explaining this 'lightning has failed' argument but couldn't turn anything up. Maybe someone on here knows what I'm talking about, and can either link me or give me the TLDR on the recent LN FUD.

Thanks in advance.

view all related items

836 sats \ 1 reply \ @antic 4 Dec 2023

I think the best way to analyze this is to look at River Finance or other large known identity nodes and players. Despite the disclosure of a very hard to implement hack that poisons the reputation of the attacker while being a limited scope attack potential, these entities are still using Lightning. If you start seeing all of these big players close up shop, then maybe Lightning will be delayed a bit longer while this is worked out. Otherwise, cash app still sends and receives, stacker news still stacks.. seems like it’s working better than ever.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @CoSatoshi OP 4 Dec 2023

Yeah, this is what perplexes me: LN works, so I don't understand the reasoning leading to someone saying it has 'failed.' It works, it's relatively decentralized (compared to any other payment rail on Earth, at least), it's fast, and it's cheap. I'm just trying to understand the logic.

317 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby 4 Dec 2023

I don't think it has failed by any stretch of the imagination. Usage and use cases are both growing. That being said as it grows we better understand the limitations and vulnerabilities.

I am hopeful that we continue to work to make lightning better but also have other options that get traction.

70 sats \ 2 replies \ @CoSatoshi OP 4 Dec 2023

I agree with you, totally. With this particular individual, I didn't really get a solid chance to pick his brain, and I don't know when I'll have the opportunity again to do so. Just trying to figure out on what basis one would even possibly make the claim that it has "failed."

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 4 Dec 2023

Was it a bitcoiner or crypto person? There is a trope amongst some crypto people that because there is more WBTC on ethereum than BTC locked in lightning that somehow that means lightning is a failed project. But lightning is just a network of liquidity channels that zap sats back and forth whereas WBTC is used as a collateral asset usually in defi on ethereum so the monetary velocity profiles are completely different.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @CoSatoshi OP 4 Dec 2023

It was a quasi-Bitcoiner. Someone very much on the libertarian/Austrian side political/economically, but has an ETH node, too. I'd say he's 80% maxi, 20% crypto-bro. 100% anti-fiat. Oh interesting, didn't know and hadn't heard that before about WBTC. He didn't mention that in our brief discussion...

297 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 4 Dec 2023

Here's one: #288995

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @CoSatoshi OP 4 Dec 2023

Ah yes, this was a while back. I still don't know if there is an update there, perhaps to can fill me in. Essentially, someone claims to have found a serious vulnerability, but we still don't know exactly what it is? Maybe I got that wrong. Anyway, for this post I'm specifically thinking of something more recent in which a dev stated that he was quitting LN and focusing elsewhere. I believe it was a different L2 like Ark. Does that sound familiar?

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @TwoLargePizzas 4 Dec 2023

I think we'll see a lot more LN FUD in the next cycle.

To be fair, I don't think LN is perfect but I don't think we can declare it failed either.

People will continue to innovate and improve things as time goes on. What that will look like I don't know but I do think Bitcoin is the perfect base layer to build upon and we'll continue to see improvements in one form or another.

12 sats \ 17 replies \ @Nuttall 4 Dec 2023

I'm running a lightning node and I have closed channels that will never settle. It's about 2,000,000 sats. To me it's time that I spent earning that I will never recover. I hope they will settle but I'm not holding my breath. On chain Bitcoin is amazing because if my full node goes down someone else has the time chain. Lightning is dependant on the parties running the nodes and if one or both go down the funds are lost.

20 sats \ 15 replies \ @antic 4 Dec 2023

The funds shouldn’t be lost if nodes go down. You can force close the channel and get the funds back. If your closing fee is too low, issue a CPFP to bump the fee.

0 sats \ 14 replies \ @Nuttall 4 Dec 2023

I'll try it. I haven't used the shell for about 8 months. Time to dig deep and learn more.

110 sats \ 13 replies \ @badabing 4 Dec 2023

You can also bump tx through mempool.space's accelerator.

0 sats \ 11 replies \ @Nuttall 5 Dec 2023

It doesn't look like it is functional yet. Do you have a link?

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @antic 5 Dec 2023

https://docs.lightning.engineering/lightning-network-tools/lnd/unconfirmed-bitcoin-transactions

In the case of a force close, we can use the command lncli wallet bumpclosefee to create a CPFP transaction that spends the outputs of our channel closure transaction. You will only be able to make use of this command if it was created as an anchor channel. To run the command successfully, you will need to specify the channel point of the channel that is being force closed.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Nuttall 6 Dec 2023

I'm using start 9 with CLN.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Nuttall 5 Dec 2023

Thank you for this pointer.

10 sats \ 7 replies \ @badabing 6 Dec 2023

You have to select your tx on their mempool, then next to 'Expected' there's a button Accelerate.

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Nuttall 6 Dec 2023

What if the transactions are not in the mempool?

10 sats \ 5 replies \ @badabing 6 Dec 2023

Then your channel close tx was already dropped by most mempools. Try to close it again.

view replies

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Nuttall 4 Dec 2023

Aha! I was trying to remember this. Thanks.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @badabing 4 Dec 2023

Why won't they settle?

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto 4 Dec 2023

LN is doing fine, at least from the perspective of my node (c-otto.de). Lots of traffic, transactions of varying sizes, channels come and go.