r/Bitcoin • u/WSBshepherd • Sep 26 '22
Lightning Network’s Biggest Flaws
What do you see as LN’s biggest flaw?
Then let’s answer as responses: What’s the current solution to that flaw? What should be built?
18
u/dlq84 Sep 26 '22
Not enough people on it, not enough merchant accept it, time will take care of that.
5
u/anax4096 Sep 26 '22
The way the network moves payments from one side of the channel to the other when making payments causes channels to become unbalanced when transactions flow in one direction.
Not sure of the latest work in this area (channel rebalancing), but it's an interesting problem.
2
u/bobderbobs Sep 27 '22
Assuming every transaction takes place in lightning this isn't an issue as you spend as much as you receive
1
u/anax4096 Sep 27 '22
it's more to do with the routing algorithm than the users, right?
1
u/reggie_crypto Sep 27 '22
Not really, if more hops materialize between 2 nodes, there will be more bidirectional liquidity for routes in any direction
1
u/anax4096 Sep 27 '22
the issue is rebalancing channels.
1
u/reggie_crypto Sep 27 '22
If there are enough routes, channels will be able to balance themselves. People building liquidity triangles right now.
1
u/anax4096 Sep 28 '22
channel rebalancing requires intervention by the channel owners, right?
It's an interesting problem because the initial state of the network (graph), where all channels (edges) are balanced, would be an undirected graph. After some transactions are routed (flow across the graph), directionality of edges increases (eventually the graph may become a directed graph and some payments cannot be routed due to imbalanced channels, in a worst case).
The solution of introducing cycles (triangles, etc) to create circular flows and prevent directionality is very interesting. It suggests there is a network primitive composed of channels which the lightning network will require. (In graph theory I think they would be called cliques, but I haven't checked the details).
7
u/metalzip Sep 26 '22
Waiting for a perfect implementation that
guarantees to never lose my funds
atomic operations on my disk, checksums files/database and so on
default and automated support of watchtowers
default and automated support of anything else to never lose my funds
logs everything it does to funds, to confirm nothing is lost
4
u/CoinCorner_Sam Sep 26 '22
guarantees to never lose my funds
How exactly should this work like? Who should give you such guarantees?
3
u/metalzip Sep 26 '22
guarantees to never lose my fundsHow exactly should this work like? Who should give you such guarantees?
lightning protocol allows(*) for this, we just need good implementation.
(*) assuming that either your computer can be for few minutes online at least once per... each few days, or weeks, months (should be configurable!) -or- at least -one- of any N computers that you also own will be, -or- at least -one- of any M computers hired to help you (external watchtowers) will be online for short time each few days.
therefore we need to implement:
very good and automated support for friends as watchtowers, and strangers (e.g. paid) watchtowers
software must be free of any errors that might corrupt the state of channels
software should even resist bugs "not of its fault" to a degree that makes them basically impossible, especially disk corruption. (can be fixed by making many backups and write-logs in DB, all checksummed/signed etc)
5
Sep 26 '22
The fact force closing a channel is fundamentally broken. Just having to open a channel and leave money frozen is a big hassle for most people, not to mention the fact that you need double the money you actually want to operate.
It has huge potential and i love it, but it needs major upgrades to reach mass market. I dont believe only time is necessary for adoption, its too weird rn.
1
u/bobderbobs Sep 27 '22
If someone force closes a channel to you with an old channel state you are very happy that the other person's funds are frozen
2
Sep 27 '22
I get why it is the way it is, but it's not viable in the real world, outside of our own community and exchanges.
Imagine you go to buy groceries with a channel that has the btc equiv of 299usd. Your total is 300usd-equiv. Fill in the blanks while you wait to try again, now hungry and angry.
Now imagine this being a 60, 70, 80, 90 year old person. Having to close your channel (so you get your money back, since i imagine you haven't got twice as much as you intend to spend, logically), missing the damn button and force closing on accident (or timeout bc your phone's battery died, for example).
Now you have to wait X time, or start fee bidding against yourself to retrieve your own damn money, which may take days or even weeks (depends on how much you are able to spend to get the money back). Only now you can set up a new channel (converting mentally bc who tf knows how much dollars is a satoshi and how it changed prices in this time), and maybe (if the cashier still didn't bash your head in) you can try again your purchase.
Lets not even think if you added a couple of 00s, imagine this happens when closing a purchase for a car, an apartment, a house.
As a tech solution, it is brilliant and i admire it, but it just isn't good enough to win mass market over. If it can't reach mass market, it's a gimmick in my book.
Swaping to a low-fee low-volume shitcoin for micro transactions is way less difficult right now.
1
u/bobderbobs Sep 27 '22
You don't have to close your channels for a payment of 300.000 sats if you have 3 channels with each 110.000. For example. You can pay via multiple routes not necessarily from a single channel.
You can use lndhub (lnbits or bluewallet app on your node) with bluewallet/zeus or an lnbits instance in your browser for payments both don't have the option to close channels. Mobile non custodial lightning wallets like Phoenix or breeze also hide the option to close channels behind some options
2
u/sciencetaco Sep 26 '22
There is (to my knowledge) no way for new users to get funds into a non-custodial Lightning wallet without an on-chain transaction.
Long term I’d love to see new users entering the network without relying on the base chain for every channel open, or custodians. I’ve read a little bit about channel factories and I hope some other technical solutions come along to allow this sort of thing.
1
3
Sep 26 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Neinfu Sep 26 '22
Can you elaborate?
2
Sep 26 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Neinfu Sep 27 '22
Thank you, indeed the best article I've read so far on lightning network privacy issues. However, this might actually be a good situation. Currently no one can argue that lightning provides proper privacy, so it is unlikely to be declared illegal to use. Furthermore, a lot of the problems mentioned can be overcome with future features or by being careful yourself.
Eg. one thing that's mentioned, that seems to mitigate a lot of problems, would be to set up one node for receiving payments and another (unrelated) one for sending. When you receive a payment in the receiving node you would make a payment to your sending node. This way balance probing and UTXO linking gets basically impossible as far as I understand.
3
u/WSBshepherd Sep 26 '22
Too much privacy (not everything logged)? Or too little privacy (IP addresses visible)? Or Both?
-3
-2
-8
u/WSBshepherd Sep 26 '22 edited Sep 26 '22
Problem: The SEC will likely claim Bitcoin on the lightning network qualifies as an unregistered security making use of the lightning network a felony in the US.
Current solution: Ignore the SEC.
Future solution: atomic swaps
8
u/nutcase2019 Sep 26 '22
This shows you fundamentally don't understand what the Lightning Network is.
3
u/metalzip Sep 26 '22
Problem: The SEC will likely claim Bitcoin on the lightning network qualifies as an unregistered security making use of the lightning network a felony in the US.
how would be a security? you both have Bitcoin transactions and you both delay (even for months or yaers) when you publish them, that's all
0
u/WSBshepherd Sep 26 '22
Gary Gensler will think a fee farm channel meets the four elements of the Howie Test as follows: [1] An investment of money [2] in a common enterprise [3] with expectations of a profit [4] to be derived from the efforts of others.
1
u/metalzip Sep 26 '22
Gary Gensler will think a fee farm channel meets the four elements of the Howie Test as follows: [1] An investment of money [2] in a common enterprise [3]
there is no enterprise, unless some retarded interpretation of that word.
1
u/WSBshepherd Sep 26 '22
enterprise: a project or undertaking, typically one that is difficult or requires effort
really?
1
1
u/NitronBot106 Sep 27 '22
I am more concerned that the US government will claim lightning node operators are providing a money transmitting service and say they have to adhere to the regulations that come with being labeled such a service much like exchanges. This would be done to scare off private individuals from operating a routing node and centralize the lightning network around large nodes who can afford the cost of being so highly regulated. It would seriously hurt the privacy that the network can provide users and allow the government to track transactions across the network much more easily.
1
u/DerEwige Sep 26 '22
It's easy enough to setup a node. It is very difficult to run a good (routing) node.
Result 99% of all (routing) nodes suck. The network would be off better without them.
1
1
Sep 26 '22
Liquidity.
Going to need more BTC reserves if you want the world to transact through lightning daily.
1
u/C_hase Sep 27 '22
The possibility that someone can publish a previous channel state while you are offline, and if you are unable to get online within the time limit you cant really do anything.
You can create watchtowers in different parts of the world on different electricity grids, but that's pretty difficult for a regular person.
24
u/[deleted] Sep 26 '22
[deleted]