FUD Or Reality Check ? \ stacker news ~lightning

FUD Or Reality Check ?

3774 sats \ 38 comments \ @0xbitcoiner 25 Mar lightning

Critics claim ‘buggy’ Bitcoin Lightning Network is slowly dying

1:21 PM • Mar 25, 2024 Bitcoin, Lightning by Protos Staff

Dwindling bitcoin capacity
Expensive to receive money
Channel freezes and other Lightning Network bugs
Significant developer departures from Bitcoin Lightning
A growing list of Bitcoin Lightning complaints

🔗 protos.com

FUD68.8%

Reality Check18.8%

I am not sure12.5%

80 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

1 reply \ @DarthCoin 25 Mar

Darth memes are right

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 25 Mar

👊

809 sats \ 4 replies \ @nullcount 25 Mar

🚫 Dwindling bitcoin capacity ✅ Getting more capital-efficient

🚫 Expensive to receive money ✅ Startup costs are amortized during the life of a channel

🚫 Channel freezes and other Lightning Network bugs ✅ Can be mitigated today. Could be solved by covenant soft fork.

🚫 Significant developer departures from Bitcoin Lightning ✅ Many new devs are building on LN

🚫 A growing list of Bitcoin Lightning complaints ✅ A growing list of LN companies/communities to support you

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 25 Mar

FUD debunked !

275 sats \ 2 replies \ @nullcount 25 Mar

Reality check: only about 50% of the last 1000 blocks have any LN channel opening txns in them. But 99% of those blocks have multiple inscriptions.

111 sats \ 0 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 25 Mar

It’s a cultural failure. People would rather destroy than create. Ordinals are destruction of capacity, Lightning is the creation of capacity.

Until we heal our culture to inspire creation, we will have to deal with those wanting to regress and destroy.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @m00ninite 26 Mar

I (and I'm sure many others) already have plenty of lightning liquidity. Now the game is to get channels balanced without hitting the main chain.

I do not want to open channels with fees where they are

643 sats \ 3 replies \ @nerd2ninja 25 Mar

I don't think lightning network is dying, but I do think everything we could have done to script everything out to make it as easy and scalable as possible has been done. I think we're ready for the next soft fork. I think we're ready for LNHANCE (CTV + CSFS + IK), BUT some people say not so fast. They want to see us try with just presigned transactions. I think this will go hilariously terribly, but maybe we just need to put on the clown suits and make presigned transaction based timeout trees.

30 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 25 Mar

Could you please point me to some useful links about LNHANCE (CTV + CSFS + IK) ?

560 sats \ 1 reply \ @nerd2ninja 25 Mar

Well you can look at the delving bitcoin thread (the person who proposed this specific set of softforks likes delving bitcoin)

https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/lnhance-bips-and-implementation/376/5

You should also look at each soft fork independently tho.

CTV stuff https://utxos.org

More CTV stuff, but this time its a blog (specifically for CTV + CSFS): https://rubin.io/blog/2021/07/02/covenants/

Honestly, just use the bitcoin search engine to search each BIP and read through the various links: https://bitcoinsearch.xyz

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 25 Mar

Thanks! That saves me a lot of time searching.

1053 sats \ 0 replies \ @endothermicdev 26 Mar

Be the change you want to see. Run a routing node. Run a liquidity ad to lower inbound liquidity rates for new operators. Attend a spec meeting. Pick an issue and contribute to one of the lightning implementations.

I do all of these btw, with no background in bitcoin or software development except a fascination with the lightning network and an interest to learn.

508 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby 25 Mar

LN still works pretty great for me.

Sure there are bugs and you have to learn how to use it, but wallets like mutiny and phoenix and Zeus make it pretty easy.

304 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 25 Mar

Sure, there are still things to be addressed and improved. It makes me question the intention of the person who wrote the article. If you notice, they don't identify the author.

318 sats \ 0 replies \ @fixthemoneyfixtheworld 25 Mar

This whole thing smells like shitcoin's FUD about Bitcoin LN.

I think you have to keep in mind that what is possible on Lightning makes hundreds of shitcoin obsolete. Therefore, it is in the best interest of shitcoin holders to spread disinformation like this to make uninformed people believe that LN is some kind of a flop.

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @krispy_donkey 25 Mar

Are you familiar with Protos? I follow them on X/Twitter but I can't remember why I started to. They regularly run what I suppose could be seen as 'objective' articles about crypto, including Bitcoin, but sometimes I get the impression they are anti-crypto, including Bitcoin. Anyway I have come to take just about everything they put out with a large grain of salt. Always good to hear dissenting views, provided they are intellectually honest. I don't think I can say that with confidence for most of what I've read from them.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 25 Mar

Never heard of protos before.

290 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 25 Mar

I think it is fair to say lightning isn't going to be the be all and end all scaling solution some purported it would be and also that it is not slowly dying.

84 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 25 Mar

Its mostly FUD. Now, I will say the LN has limits. It doesn't scale infinitely. That said, it works quiet well. Engagement trolling is easy. That mostly what I've been seeing. It is easier to get attention by saying _ is dead. Nothing new there. Everything has tradeoffs. This phase of nonsense will pass.

26 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 25 Mar

If you think its FUD but do not know why then start studying the LN. If you don't think it is FUD but can't explain why you need to do some homework.

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner OP 25 Mar

I don't know everything, but I noticed that there was some excess of pessimism in some points. I knew why in some cases, but not in others. That's why I like SN, there's always someone who knows.

16 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 25 Mar

Yeah, I feel ya. My statement probably has holes because there are people FUD'n LN who are ignorant and aren't even explaining why. Who knows what they think or why. That's humans.

18 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xIlmari 25 Mar

I think the network is changing. Fewer plebs running routing nodes because it's getting expensive, but more and more companies getting in with their expertise and effects of scale.

If you keep using the same metrics to measure something, you may sometimes see something that looks like regression.

16 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 26 Mar

The main complaint is on chain fees. So basically this FUD is saying the big problem with lightning is that it uses Bitcoin.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Darthcoin_Cash 26 Mar

selfhosted wallets are a pain in the ass to use (channel management) and third party hosted wallets are just a bitcoin version of paypal, no control over your coins, completely dependent on the wallet provider, no privacy at all.

16 sats \ 1 reply \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 25 Mar

We are so early with Bitcoin and we will continue to scale. Very few predicted the progress we’ve made so far. Onward!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 25 Mar

⚡

16 sats \ 1 reply \ @Coinsreporter 25 Mar

When I entered into Bitcoin in 2017, I always felt bad because it used to take much longer while sending and receiving. I remember that there were immense talks about 'Bitcoin being so slow' and how other options were trying to cash it. But then came a 'lightning' straight from heaven and all options became obsolete.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 25 Mar

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lumor 26 Mar

Lightning was overhyped. It's still a beautiful protocol for larger players and power users. It is not dead. Bring on more criticism. Let's keep building!

8 sats \ 0 replies \ @030a29f333 26 Mar

The technical limitations of lightning have always been there. We're just starting to see what the network looks like in a more mature setting. Necessity births innovation. Problems are being solved.

8 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheWildHustle 26 Mar

Time will destroy all of the FUD above.

I’m looking forward to seeing more splicing and dual funded channels with light e-cash integrations.

Heck, I’m waiting to see what impact miner lightning payouts is going to have on the network (TheWildHustle assumes a positive one).

8 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheL0wner 25 Mar

ln works fine. affinity scammers hate that.

8 sats \ 0 replies \ @riberet19 25 Mar

FUD, more FUD, and then some more FUD.

8 sats \ 2 replies \ @xz 25 Mar

It ain't perfect, but then again, what is?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner OP 25 Mar

FUD

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @xz 25 Mar

I voted FUD because I've never really had any problems with Lightning. I run a node, it works every day. I use custodial apps and they have only ever worked for me as well. It's taken time to learn about..

"A growing list of Bitcoin Lightning complaints."

Oh I see, it's a website with a shitcoin ticker. Got it.

16 sats \ 0 replies \ @Darthcoin_Cash 26 Mar

Yea after a couple years with Lightning, i have to say the big blockers of 2017 were not so wrong with their arguments ( heresy!! ). Selfhosted Lightning is unusable for normies, all thats left is a third party hosted wallet = with no control over your coins, zero privacy (the wallet company knows all your transactions and will rat you out when the feds come). So yea, much less excitement about Lightning than in 2017