Why do people hate on Lightning?

Attached: 2C6371AE-8698-4BDD-91C7-AAEC80C62372.png (1281x721, 1.44M)

We already have custodial banking. Plus the whitepaper is fucking awful. None of the clarity and simplicity of the original plan.

Attached: btc.jpg (910x422, 76K)

Why do you keep making this gayass thread. What galactic bags are you holding that this shit terrifies you so much

I’m a different user. That user actually knows tech. I don’t, I just watch layman videos and get hyped.

Can’t I just run my own LN node?

No, it's you. Same thread multiple times per week. I dgaf. Just wanted to tell you you're a retard and that I won't be bumping this bullshit.

because they are heavily invested in fork counterfeit shitcoins with a stolen name.

Only reason you have to think it’s the same user is because of the image, but it’s literally the only good one you can find on Google image. What now?

Firstly you cannot simply receive BTC through LN unless you start with your own BTC. With that you fund your channel, but you can't receive an amount of BTC larger than your channel.
You have to run a full node on lightning which will limit what devices are able to do so. Oh and that full node has to be online around the clock for you to receive any payments. If someone attempts to send you BTC through LN but your node is offline then the transaction is not made. Bonus: The other user receives an error message with no details explaining why the payment failed.
My favorite part is what shows how broken this shit really is. let's say we have users A, B, C and D in this example. User A wants to send 1 BTC to user D, but A & D do not have a channel between them, so the 1 BTC is then routed via the lightning network through user B and user C, who have a channel to user D, with users B and C taking a small fee for routing the payment. But hold up, if users B and C don't have at least 1 BTC in their channel, your payment won't make it to user D regardless of their chain of channels. If you are trying to send payment to someone who only has a chain of channels with those who have less than what you are trying to send, it is literally impossible to send that payment.
Not to mention the litany of other issues. We already saw what small block mentality led to, there is no way the LN will ever used on a large scale without a generous block size increase (ironic isn't it?)
The potential for malicious DDoS attacks and the risk of leaking your private keys just pile on the heap of garbage LN already is. Did I mention how LN inevitably leads to massive centralization? Naturally those who can fund their channel with the most BTC are going to have a better chance of getting fees from payments going through their channel. In the end when you are trying to send BTC to user D again, chances are you can make that payment but only because these centralized channels exist.

>Naturally those who can fund their channel with the most BTC are going to have a better chance of getting fees from payments going through their channel.
Should read
>Naturally those who can fund their channel with the most BTC are going to have a better chance of payments going through their channel.

Sounds like LN is more centralized and is limited to small/micro BTC transactions. The whole must-be-online 24/7 thing isn't that big an issue to me. I guess it's not perfect though. Thanks for the explanation. Idk, I'm bit of a normie so if everyone else uses it then I really don't care, as long as BTC price goes up.

Because it destroys the scam-promise of all altcoins.

Attached: satoshi on payment channels.png (1024x275, 249K)

The people who hate lightning have altcoin bags and don't understand it

It's really interesting technology but still not polished with room for much improvement
There are legitimate criticisms but it's a 2nd layer so don't use it if you don't like it

The truth is there will be "hubs"
Routing nodes require liquidity, good hardware, and smart operators to efficiently place channels and keep them balanced
Brainlets can't handle it, it'll be way too competitive

You're going to get instant payments on a network with a new incentive structure a bit more centralized but more useful
And at the end of the day bitcoin maintains its consensus as the most secure and decentralized network

Besides it being a bloated 2nd layer solution, LN meant for micropayments, amounts that you won't care about losing (i.e., pennies or few bucks worth of BTC). LN doesn't solve the scalability problem because most people aren't doing micropayments with BTC.

The potential for lightning network is bringing bitcoin to the masses
It won't happen tomorrow but things will keep getting more efficient with schnorr, batching, splicing, channel factory
Lightning makes bitcoin so much more than the hardy layer 1, it's just the beginning of applications integrating into bitcoin's chain

Because it completely defeats the purpose of the blockchain.

How? It utilises bitcoin chain to make it more versatile
The purpose of a blockchain is security decentralization consensus etc.
Lightning can upgrade freely while bitcoin remains in consensus
This idea is a whole lot better than damaging security (pos) decentralization (no blocksize limit) and consensus (hard forks) just to add more throughput and attack surface

I like this. Thanks for the explanation.
>there’s a nontrivial probability of LN bringing mass adoption
What a time to be alive

>How? It utilises bitcoin chain to make it more versatile
Wrong.
>This idea is a whole lot better than damaging security (pos)
Wrong.

There is a 1 to 1 relationship between people who think lightning is a good idea, and people who are bitcoin maximalists that don't want to move on to better blockchain technologies. You are the boomers of the blockchain.

That guy just said that brainlets can't handle it. How would there be mass adoption if LN is such a PITA to setup and use?

/facepalm

It's more like, anyone who understands the technology will automatically become a bitcoin maximalist...

The technology is that good.

the tl;dr version is that LN is still in beta and has issues which people are trying to solve 24/7 but turbo autists hate it because it isn't the perfect scaling solution straight away and therefore it is a failure

>he thinks crypto is about tech
Common misconception but dude crypto is literally creating money out of nothing, its all about name recognition. Doesn't matter how good the tech, most people don't even understand basic blockchain concepts yet let alone the newest crypto concepts, but yet everyone has heard of Bitcoin. Its literally the most important thing when it comes to inventing money, not the tech

Attached: Bitcoin.jpg (2638x2689, 1.08M)

you missed the point entirely
routing node operators will be competing all the time
the average user doesn't need to route to use the network
if they want to route they can, but if they set their fees to 0 and someone pushes the liquidity to one side of the channel they lose on tx fees to re-balance it
where a node operator can be so well connected he can re-balance his channels within his network or charge a few satoshi to where it's competitively cheap and also makes enough to justify an occasional on chain re-balance

sure the LN devs want autopilot to be advanced and have algorithms maintaining balance and make this thing autonomous, but in the short term we are going to see expert routing node operators
right now most operators offer 0 fees, stay online all the time, and re-balance frequently just to build reputation and build up 1000s of channels to their node

bitcoin has name recognition because it's good tech
it's the most tested, secure, decentralized, and longest running network and deserves the name recognition

Lava network is better. Lavatoken.con

/thread