So why is nobody actually using the lightning network after all these years?

Multiple large vendors that support lightning network vendors are seeing practically no usage by anyone: https://x.com/CoinCards/status/1809702144288882870

Ex-purist like me bought our own full node and fiddle with it all weekend just to play around with the lightning network.

Aint' nobody else got time for that.

Background: I was around for August 2017 hard-fork, running one of (then) ~2000 worldwide verification nodes (i.e. not mining, rule-setting): I can assure you the lack of offchain usage was predictable.

For the diehard technologists, it's interesting to note that Satoshi's original whitepaper called for a much larger blocksize (32MB, verse 1MB pre-SegWit/Lightning); myself, I ran BitcoinUnlimited with 16MB block acceptance well into 2018 (I'm anti anti anti SegWit/Lightning).

For some reason, years of BIPs have claimed that "1MB is necessary due to bandwidth limitations..." which even in 2017 was horseshit... but now it's 2024 and I can get 300mbps fiber for $57.99/month (with a ping <3ms).

HODL.

My understanding is that miners wanted small blocks and have hobbled the protocol for them.

I'm not sure what caused your belief, but:

Miners are (and always have been) allowed to mine blocks containing zero transactions (i.e. ~0kB, not including necessities). It's us nodes that choose to reject/accept (of course there is Venn overlap).

This was common until block congestion actually started encouraging senders to include transaction fees; these [still!-]voluntarily fees represent a healthy addition to the blockreward, so most miners incur the minimal overhead for much-greater profit.

Yet zero-transaction blocks continue to be mined (albeit less-frequently).

Because LN is a centralized service that 100% defeats the purpose of cryptocurrency, it's weird so many have fallen for the scam.

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) functions as Bitcoin, digital cash, still, Bitcoin (BTC) is a digital Ponzi scheme for morons run by the US government.

Do you understand the downside of large blocks?

Do you understand that the block limit was set fourteen years ago, and that bandwidth and storage have increased exponentially since then?

It was also introduced as a temporary spam measure.

So right, but the issue is that block size increases only get you a linear increase in transaction rates which doesn't really address the problem (would 50 t/s somehow resolve any blockchain congestion?). So you make your currency less secure, risk chain splits but haven't even really solved any problems

If the hardware is improving exponentially, then increasing the block size on the same curve is also an exponential improvement.

Layer 2 is helpful but does not entirely remove the need for space on chain. In LN for example, every channel opening and closing uses block space.

Nothing centralized about it and it's not a service. I can open a Lightning channel to my friend and make as many transactions as I want. Only the final difference is broadcasted to the Bitcoin blockchain. A similar method was originally suggested by Satoshi for scaling Bitcoin, so I don't know how it could be a "scam".

Why use lightning when you can use visa?

Hint hint hint

No. Lightning simply gives up more decentralization and security for the illusion of scalability.

I say illusion of scalability because it's still hamstrung by Bitcoin in a major way. You still need to use Bitcoin to enter the system, which is a big bottleneck. For security you also need to be able to settle to the Bitcoin blockchain in a cheap and reliable way, which just won't scale with a congested blockchain.

Lightning is honestly pretty shit and it's not at all a solution to Bitcoin's problems.

If I understand correctly, lightning allow an unbounded amount of transactions for the cost of a couple of on chain transactions. So sure, there are still the need to hit the chain, but if you were to do all transactions on chain, you'd be even less scalable. In that respect, I don't see how you can claim that it is only an illusion.

Exactly. Lightning minimizes the use of the globally consistent ledger, which inevitably has to make trade-offs due to the "trilemma".

You set aside some funds on the global ledger and then you can use those funds to transact in a much more efficient, truly p2p manner, without touching the global ledger. Eventually, you net out everything and settle it all at once on-chain, utilizing its features to resolve any conflicts.

> an unbounded amount of transactions

.. between the two parties that started the link, up to the initial value. It's so limited as to be useless. It's like a bar tab where you have to put down a deposit of the maximum amount you might spend first.

https://docs.lightning.engineering/the-lightning-network/pay...

Well you can use intermediate nodes, it doesn't have to be a direct payment channel between sender and receiver.

But to make that work, you have to be online in real time to receive funds. It's not like on-chain transactions that complete without needing your direct involvement. If you're not online, then somebody has to do that on your behalf and now you're back to having someone else custody your funds. Here's a good article explaining it:

https://github.com/moneybutton/yours-channels/blob/master/do...

(You also need someone online monitoring for fraud, even without intermediates, but at least that part can be outsourced without trusting someone with custody.)

> Well you can use intermediate nodes, it doesn't have to be a direct payment channel between sender and receiver.

Assuming of course that there's a path between the sender and receiver, and that there's enough liquidity at each step of the way.

Otherwise, you need to setup a new channel, paying dearly for it once more.

Adding on to this:

If Bitcoin scalability is the problem Lightning Solves, then it almost tautologically fails when you realize that entering into a Lightning Channel requires a base Bitcoin transaction. If every person on Earth tried to take on-chain Bitcoin into a LN Channel, it would skyrocket the fee-rate.

The only other option then would be for all Bitcoin purchased to exist on Lightning, so people simply buy LN Bitcoin. This is not impractical to get started; exchanges simply send and receive LN BTC. But Lightning security relies on the ability to get a transaction posted to the base layer Bitcoin.

If everyone is using lightning, and thousands of users are attacked on Lightning at once, the chain would not be able to handle the influx and would leave many victims. Not only that, but the LN node network would naturally centralize, especially with liquidity requirements.

It would be much better to properly scale some base layer.

Yes and its not a good solution. In El Salvador most people struggle with bitcoin itself and only very few use the lightning network there.

So practically: not a good solution.