1803 sats \ 12 replies \ @justin_shocknet 5 Jan \ on: Why do people declare the LN a failure? Ask_SN
Lightning is infinitely reusable chain transactions, nothing more or less when you boil it down. People that don't understand Bitcoin, or don't want to use the chain at all, get mad when it doesn't behave more like an SQL database than the chain.
NGU is Bitcoin's core value proposition, payments are a tougher sell since most of the world has largely satisfactory payment rails.
Information warfare is the biggest factor. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested into affinity scams like Fedimints and Liquid, that money buys opinions more than it buys developers.
Totally agree with this post and your other 2 tweets:
- https://nitter.net/CapitalistDog1/status/1737896114429272380
- https://nitter.net/CapitalistDog1/status/1737532103951020518
I will just add this:
The todays problems with BTC and LN are not the fees, but the stupid force closes of channels.
If we find a way to limit to minimum reasons a force closing channel, LN will work just fine.
Opening channels in high fee environment is NOT the problem, the force closing channels is the problem.
If I have the certainty that a channel will not get force closed in the next year, I could easily manage my batch channels opening in a better way and cheaper.
But if I open today a 20M sats channel and in few months get force closed because some stupid shity node in the routing path got stucked HTLCs (not being my fault), that hurts a lot and disrupt massively the network.
In theory you do not have to close a channel if it just work fine and route payments. You close it ONLY in emergency cases and even then first you try to have a cooperative closure.
But yeah, people nowadays just come up with stupid ideas to "fix Bitcoin" and moving away from Bitcoin values.
I am tired of all this bullshit proposals.
reply
Then your understanding is wrong, see again re: information warfare.
Hot wallets are obviously less secure than cold wallets by nature of their online-ness, this is not Lightning specific and Lightning is still ultimately the chain.
The alternative offering is "not bitcoin", sad to see so many taking the bait.
reply
reply
Any time someone gripes about Lightning they're usually shilling something else.
Because Lightning is Bitcoin, the something else is invariably "not bitcoin", such as a federated shitcoin.
reply
From my understanding, it is less secure than on-chainThen your understanding is wrong, see again re: information warfare.
You're saying LN is not less secure than on chain?
Hot wallets are obviously less secure than cold wallets by nature of their online-ness, this is not Lightning specific and Lightning is still ultimately the chain.
LN nodes are hot wallets though, no?
reply
You're saying LN is not less secure than on chain?
Not inherently, because it's still the chain.
Surface area of software is a factor obviously, so one saying LN is less secure than Core would also have to admit that Electrum is less secure than Core.
It's hair splitting.
LN nodes are hot wallets, no?
Typically, but not necessarily. Payment channels over dark networks or private lines might become more common over time. I understand a few large players to do this already, as its better opsec than broadcasting settlements. Here LN offers more security.
A hot Bitcoin Core wallet ultimately shares the same risks as a hot LN wallet, so to call LN less secure is disingenuous.
reply
A hot Bitcoin Core wallet ultimately shares the same risks as a hot LN wallet, so to call LN less secure is disingenuous.
Mhh, I think I see where you're coming from now. How people use LN currently might be less secure (custodial, hot wallets etc.) but as you explained, that doesn't necessarily mean that LN itself is less secure.
It's just a multisig with timeouts onchain.
Did I summarize your point of view correctly?
Can you elaborate on this though?
Payment channels over dark networks or private lines might become more common over time
With private lines, you mean LN nodes that pay or route through each other inside a VPN? What is a "dark network"?
reply
Did I summarize your point of view correctly?
Yea I think fairly, i'd just also point out that the way most people use the chain currently is at parity... mostly custodial or hot.
Dark Network
Yea basically a VPN between partners and other opco's. I worked on this stuff in the energy sector, dark networks power basically everything and I think the same will be true for the majority of Bitcoin transactions.
reply
reply
Of course, and I share it with friends and family who don't want the added friction for their spending amounts.
Centralization relative to what? The optionality exists to self-host, it is a "network" afterall, so no I have no idea what you're talking about.
reply