It has come to my attention that there are still many people who think that the Lightning Network was designed to give full instant payment access to everybody on the planet in a completely self-custodial way from now until the end of time. There are those in the bitcoin space who are using this fact to criticize the Lightning Network and spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) and misconception.
Why these people, who never use Lightning, are so hell-bent on encouraging and spreading the false notion that the Lightning Network is dying/dead is beyond me. I suppose they just want you to hold in cold storage forever. I don't know.
First, The Lightning Network is still new. It is progressing well. We have lots of developments coming, such as taproot channels, PTLCs, route blinding, and more. It is still early. And while it is fairly easy to start a node and open channels today, it will not always be like that.
This begs the question, "Okay, then what is the point of Lightning?" The Lightning Network will likely transition to be a settlement layer between various federations and institutions. As on-chain fees skyrocket over time to compensate for huge settlement transactions, the Lightning Network will likely facilitate smaller but still relatively large settlements.
For example, say a community wants to build a new road or bridge. The community uses a fedimint style system for their general spending needs, but to renovate or build a bridge is expensive. They will likely come together and use the Lightning Network to pay the builders federation for the project. Likely in various chunks as the project progresses, but this is how it will likely be used. The federation will have a lightning node, but not the individuals.
This is actually success in my book. The Lightning Network will have many uses beyond this, but the fun we are having now of running our own node, connected to Zeus, and buying a beer at Bitcoin Park will not last forever. As bitcoin becomes more and more scarce, 90% of the planet will likely get their first sats from working for it, not from selling their fiat for it. And these sats will come out of a federated system.
To add a toxic cherry on top, it is amusing how no one actually running a lightning node or using lightning successfully is complaining about Lightning to the extent that those who do not use Lightning or who do not understand Lightning are. I am not sure what their goal is, but damn if anyone knows, let me know.
My opinions are subject to change, but this is how I am feeling right now. I did not proofread.
Nobody knows how this is all going to play out.
I think your vision probably will age well, but in addition to the things you mentioned that exist already in nascent form, there will be structures / institutions / social groupings that we can barely imagine. If btc works, it will re-structure human social interaction, and economic interaction, just as all the major technological revolutions that came before did.
Lightning macro-criticizers show a profound lack of imagination. Although, this failing is not unique to them.
reply
Lightning macro-criticizers show a profound lack of imagination.
good one
reply
I like the idea that 90% of the planet gets paid by the network rather than swapping their fiat into it.
There is a bit of a survivorship bias problem with the idea that those who use Lightning are not complaining about it. If they didn't like it, then they probably wouldn't be using it.
I agree though, almost all the people who don't use are not using it because they haven't taken the time to understand.
reply
I implore you to look into timeout trees by John Law.
Custodians, even federated custodians, are not a necessity, except for if all soft forks are rejected.
reply
why use an insecure system where people lose money? i lost 250.000 sat on umbrel.
which is extremely hard and expensive to set up and close (liquidity, balancing etc)
when people can just use monero for privacy and ultra low fees from their phone or their computer without any risk or inconvenience
reply
Monero only has low fees because no one uses it. If it had a fraction of bitcoin's volume, it's fees would be far higher than bitcoin's because transactions are much larger
reply
deleted by author
reply
That's where lightning and other scaling solutions come in. Using the blockchain for everyday payments was never going to scale
reply
deleted by author
reply
No, we can solve this with different scaling solutions, you don't need to do an on-chain tx for every person
reply
deleted by author
reply
i've complained plenty. it took me about $1k to setup LN channels.
reply
Agree 100%
reply
Well said ToxicSara. Lightning certainly isn't perfect but things are developing pretty quickly for the world of payments.
Coming from the traditional payments world, I see strong parallels with the Real-time Gross Settlement Systems (RTGS) such as CHAPs and Real-Time Payment Systems like Faster Payments in the UK. The former settles a similar volume of transactions to Bitcoin each day a few hundred of thousand) whereas the latter clears millions of payments a day but only settles on a deferred net basis three times a day via CHAPs.
We just need to be more economic with the on chain settlement and the multi-layered system with then scale!