[Why Some People Call Bitcoin Cash ‘bcash’](https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/why-some-people-call-bitcoin-cash-bcash-this-will-be-shocking-to-new-readers-956558da12fb). But you're a Good Boi, you called it "bcash", get your doggie biscuit from [your master](https://twitter.com/bitcoin/status/1022821660913627136?lang=en).
The lightning network is a micropayment layer, what does this have to do with your life savings please elaborate further?
The payment processor at Amazon does not handle my life savings, why would they?
just two recent payment processors:
coingate alone enabled it for over 4000 merchants: [https://coingate.com/lightning-network](https://coingate.com/lightning-network)
[globee.com](https://globee.com) also enabled LN payments (not sure how many merchants) [https://twitter.com/globeecom/status/1011236627555987456?lang=en](https://twitter.com/globeecom/status/1011236627555987456?lang=en)
Coingate didn't enable that on 4000 merchants only on a 100+ selected merchant.
That was an old news from July. Later in September they enabled Lightning payments for all merchants:
The list seems to be huge but I've a couple try and they are not working.
First all that refereed to [coinpayments.net](https://coinpayments.net), LN do not work there... they are working on it.
Other like [fuddice](https://fuddice.shop/) have a single product to sell and it's BO... I don't really count that as a store.
The list of real merchant selling real stuff with LN is still pretty slim.
I agree, fwiw. LN is still in pretty early phase.
My point is, there are vendors. Bitrefill gets a decent number of LN transactions they have said. There are seceral coffee places and several places you can have a beer and pay with LN. Considering we are still in beta, launched only in March, I say adoption is decent.
[bitrefill.com](https://bitrefill.com) get a lot of love from me.
LN is the only crypto they accept that allows for INSTANT delivery of digital goods. All other crypto requires confirmations (including BCH).
someone is doing an interesting experiment. there are 20 nodes from the "lnbig.com" domain having between 6-20 BTC in capacity. these nodes make up like two thirds of the whole LN capacity.
that should be enough liquidity to make coffee payments work reliably.
Someone is investing big time ....
Considering how few users the network has, this is way too much capacity for the moment. However that gives a lot of room for growth and then probably more people will run a bunch of nodes with 20 BTC capacity each.
Please you can check sources ;) https://github.com/btcontract/lnwallet
P.S. Any wallet begun from 100 users :)
And you asked about good lightning mobile wallets. You got answer. It's the best LN wallet...
$1M in USD terms. That's capacity.
I run a lightning node and I just upped the capacity on some of my channels bigtime recently. It's just a coincidence I guess but I've been running it a while and have more confidence in how it all works. I plan to do more with it and need the capacity myself. I guess everyone else has been thinking like me too. Bigtime bullish IMO.
I have fees set low unlike some people. At 1 satoshi per transaction it's gonna take a lonnngggg time before I ever make any money. Routing is not always smart enough at the moment to always choose the most optimal path. Occasionally I notice payments I make that go through several hops and the fees end up being 200+ satoshis. Still nothing but bothers me a bit. Fatter channels are important because if you look at the network how it was a couple months back, channels were like $1.63 or something ridiculously small and no one could route payments.
Please know all this about lightning before getting too excited about the lightning unicorn.....
Essentially, lightning only works as a scaling solution when everyone is already using it. It has no way to bridge the gap from no users (where it is starting) to everyone worldwide using it.
If the node you are trying to pay is offline, you simply can't pay. And you still incur fees when you settle your channels on the restricted blocksize chain.
Worse, it has numerous tradeoffs that will discourage the average person from using it. This amplifies the downsides that arise from it not being universally in use instantly, and will prevent it from ever reaching that state. Here are those:
You must be online all the time to be paid. And the person you want to pay must be online for you to pay them too.
If you go offline at the wrong time and aren't using a centralized hub, you can lose money you didn't even knowingly transact with.
The solution to #2 is to enlist "watchers" to prevent you from losing money. More overhead the average person isn't going to care about or understand, and more fees that have to be paid. Or people will just be forced to use centralized hubs.
Two new users to Lightning will not be able to actually pay eachother without using a centralized hub because no one will lock up funds into the opposing side of their channels; No funded channels = can't pay eachother. Hence... Hubs.
Using hubs will come with a fee; They aren't going to lock up their capital on your behalf for no cost.
The entire system is vulnerable to a mass-default attack. Hubs are especially vulnerable.
Lightning will not be able to route large payments(no route available).
Lightning transactions are larger than normal transactions.
Lightning nodes must keep track of the full history of channel states themselves. If they lose this, they are vulnerable to attacks and may lose coins.
Attackers may randomly lock up funds anywhere along the chain of channels for extended periods of time(many hours) at no cost to themselves.
The network randomly may fail to work for a user under certain circumstances for no discernable reason as far as they can see (no route available).
And the issues directly related to the not having everyone on the planet on lightning at first:
Small payments consolidating into larger ones, such as a retailer who needs to pay vendors, will fail to route on Lightning, and the loop between the source of the payments(end users) and their destinations(retailers) is broken. This means every channel will "flow" in one direction, and need to be refilled to resume actually being used.
Refilling every channel will be at least one onchain transaction, possibly two. If this happens twice a month, 1mb blocks + segwit will only be able to serve 4 million users. Some estimates are that Bitcoin already has 2-3 million users.
Regardless of lightning's offchain use, Bitcoin must still have enough transaction fees to provide for its network security. Except instead of that minimum fee level being shouldered by 1000 - 500000 million transactions, it is only shouldered by ~170 million transactions with segwit 1mb blocks.
That situation doesn't exist in a vacuum. Users will have a choice - They can go through all that, deal with all of those limitations, odd failures & risks and pay the incredibly high fees for getting on lightning in the first place... Or they can just buy Ethereum, use a SPV wallet, and have payments confirmed in 15 seconds for a fraction of the fees. Or roughly the same choice for SPV+BCH.
The choice will be obvious.
My (and many others) opinion is that lighting is not near as good as people think it will be... It just isn't a scaling solution. Lightning is fine for use cases that need to do frequent, small, or predictable payments with few entities. For example, mining pools paying PPLNS miners. Or gamblers making small bets on gambling sites. Or traders making frequent trades on exchanges.
But as a general purpose scaling solution for average people? It sucks, and they are absolutely not going to go through all of that shit just to use crypto, especially not with better, cheaper, more reliable options out there.
There is a huge amount of goodwill toward LN from Bitcoin maximalists, because they don’t want to increase block sizes. LN is not really a solution in that sense, it is a response by a community to a recognition that they are losing control of Bitcoin to more competent operators. It’s also a response by miners to the fact that they have to reinvest to handle bigger blocks instead of purely profit from old hardware.
Over 2 years ago I had high hopes for LN and now I cannot see any value in it. It is over complicated, an over engineered solution that does not solve any of the problems and creates new ones at the expense of the strengths that plain BTC has.
Lol. Never was debunked. One guy once tried to argue a few points but never disproved anything.
“Nice try, though.”
AntonomonCrypto God | CC: 81 QC | BTC: 73 QC | ICX: 37 QC6 months ago
I don’t get it, couldn’t this all have been avoided by increasing the block size a few Mb? At least scale it? Data storage is only getting easier and easier. 10 years ago, a few Mb was a lot — now, it’s comparable to 1 Gb because storage is much easier. This will only exponentially continue.
These pathetic arguments have ruined crypto and a brilliant idea that was Bitcoin. Congratulations.
The blocksize *was* increased, plenty of blocks are larger than 1MB these days. We've also got some deftly rebalanced fee incentives fighting costly UTXO bloat, too, and modularized witness data for optional selectivity, all of which is to say that chain usage moving forward has been optimized to be more economical all-around **as** we also more-than-doubled the byte limit we're working with.
On top of all that, the fee market (you know, the one which Bitcoin *needs* in the long-term) has been developing healthily, and for payments of smaller values and those which need instant (and trustless) security, Lightning Network has been working great and maturing remarkably well.
Meanwhile, the vocal minority (and make no mistake, they were *very much* the *extreme* minority) went their separate ways and... well, [we can see where that's gotten them](https://i.imgur.com/lwE5pZO.jpg).
You don't seem to have noticed, but Bitcoin is doing better than ever, and is still going exactly according to plan. Our problems pretty much jettisoned themselves out of our community and did everything they could to validate our stance *over and over and over* to this day.
AntonomonCrypto God | CC: 81 QC | BTC: 73 QC | ICX: 37 QC6 months ago
>You don't seem to have noticed, but Bitcoin is doing better than ever, and is still going exactly according to plan.
Lmao I’m crying. OK chief.
Literally “this is actually good for Bitcoin”: the post.
It always amazes me how poorly lightning posts do on /r/Cryptocurrency.
No one said it would be easy. No one said it would be better than crypto project X, Y or Z. But if it makes Bitcoin scale, and if I can send to and withdraw from an exchange with LN.. how does this negatively affect you?
(Just throwing that out there since my fiat gateway started using it)