Talk:Lightning Network

Commitment Transactions is confusing

Supposedly, the purpose of transaction $B_{2}$ is to transfer 0.25mBTC from Alice to Bob, yet the difference between the two parts of $B_{2}$ is 0.50mBTC - twice the stated transfer amount. Is that a typo, required or what?

• What is the protocol purpose of the various transactions?

• What is transaction $A_{1}$ and $B_{1}$? Why are they necessary and/or how are they related to the 0.25mBTC transaction?

• Why are all the various steps in transaction 2 necessary?

Alice owns only 1.00mBTC yet she creates an outgoing transfer of 1.25mBTC, immediately overdrawing her account balance.

• Why is this allowed?
• Are these values arbitrary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtKocsis (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Alice and Bob both "Funded" a transaction (on the Blockchain) with 1mBTC each, so the transaction has 2mBTC in total. Alice and Bob are then creating (but not publishing to the blockchain) new transactions to spend that initial funding transaction, that divides it up differently. It's not clear to me from the page how the revocation works though. They can't be publishing the revocation keys to the blockchain, so how can they trust each other not to use the old keys? 108.171.128.162 (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"builds upon" is vague

What does it mean to "build upon" another network and what does it mean that "the Lightning Network" is built upon multiple different networks (some future stage of Bitcoin with segwit enabled and Litecoin, at least)?

Should this intro link to "overlay network?" Would LN be overlay? Or is more of an interconnecting mesh which only interfaces to these coin networks for purposes of settlement and penalization? JimD (talk)

I edited the article to clarify this with trivial reasoning. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Punishment vs Penalty

Is the term "punishment" really appropriate for this article? Are these semantics more aptly described as "penalties" rather than "punishments?" Is the term being used here, in Wikipedia, because it matches terminology in the drafts, proposals, documentation or implementations of LN? JimD (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to penalty to match [1]. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Penalty is used in the lightning bolt spec: https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/d975de1ba5d3e8aca586154ae0cae8f1b3181495/05-onchain.md#penalty-transactions-weight-calculation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty daemon (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Crypto currencies supporting Lightning

Hi, I'm new to editing wikipedia pages, so I thought that I'd make the suggestions in the talk page rather than on the Lightning page. It dawned on me the other day that CloakCoin was refactored using Litecoin's recent codebase which included segregated witness support. I'll post this on the Segregated Witness Wikipedia page as well.

It seems there will need to be a place where there is a table of cryptocurrencies with Segwit and Lightning support. I'll be checking my facts, but you can see from the cloakcoin announcement (https://www.cloakcoin.com/en/news/update-2_1_0_0.html) that they have brought Litecoin's Segregated witness support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebitcoinorg (talk • contribs) 04:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this article needs to be more broad. I understand that lightning was initially proposed for Bitcoin, but eventually deployed first on litecoin. Maybe this article should focus more as a technology, rather than a 'bitcoin scaling solution'. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems like something we should add. Litecoin, Bitcoin, in-development Cloakcoin - are there any others? Dr-Bracket (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I introduced a section called "Lightning Internetwork". The idea is that the original "Lightning Network" is the network of Poon Dryja payment channels. The internetwork is the network of networks that support HTLCs and BOLT11 invoices. I'm tracking submarine swaps, cross-chain atomic swaps (need altcoin list), and hosted channels as networks that need to be added to the internetwork section. Nerdyrugbyguy (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Going live

I suppose we are waiting for more WP:IRS but it seems that lightning is now live on mainnet. See the blockstream PR announcement [2] and twitter [3], not to mention spec v1.0 [4]. Was picked up by CoinDesk here [5], but I still dont know if it is live and i don't see anything saying it is live. Some sources are showing live nodes on mainnet [6] and [7] Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it live, more like testing alpha-code on a live network but that doesn't make it production ready.[8] Some have called it out for being a bad move and that people are going to (and have been actually) losing real money because it's not production ready yet.[9] Davidswiki (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Using WP:IRS

@David.S.Wiki: I have twice reverted your efforts to add content that lack WP:IRS, see [10]. Please read about reliable sources and then find some suitable ones. Specificlly medium.com, youtube, etc are not reliable sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Davidswiki: I'm looking at some of your edits. I changed this edit [11] as it contained your WP:OR in that you said "In addition when payment channels are opened, funding them requires two on-chain transactions (to open and close the channel) making managing Lighting Network payment channels more expensive than actually doing an on-chain Bitcoin transactions." Do not add content to a page that is not supported in the sources. There was nothing in the source that said it was "more expensive" or something even remotely similar to that. It might be obvious to you that it is expensive to open a close a channel, but what is obvious to you, doesnt mean it is allowed on the wikipedia article. Obvious to you or me is in fact WP:OR, and not allowed. I have changed that edit to cleanup that contnet to what is on the source. I also don't even see the source stating the lightning channel must be closed, it only says open it, but I might have skimmed too quickly. In this edit [12] I removed the balance of what you added, as the only source that is an WP:RS is bitcoin magazine, investing.com, seekingalpha, etc is not WP:RS. As I mentioned to you on another talk page [13] is that you need to add the source at the end of each and every sentence, and the source must validate all of the content you have added. I preserved a little content [14] from the bitcoinmagazine source you added, as that is a good source. Feel free to add more content that is supported by the source. There was nothing in that source that said anything about the node having to stay online, etc. In general, you might see some content on other Wikipedia pages, that lacks sources, and is left alone. However, in other cases content will be challenged and the sources reviewed, especially when the content seeks to push a particular point of view, especially when the WP:POV is WP:FRINGE. Therefore, please add sources at the end of each sentence, or even copy the exact text on the talk page, and discuss with the editors before/after adding it. It saves a bit of time. Thanks and happy editing! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Ok, still trying here to add in important information that is supported with the articles I referenced but yes I put them into my own words. As you requested it's probably better to just copy and paste them instead of adding my own interpretation. Maybe that is the mistakes I'm making, sorry about that. - Davidswiki (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Davidswiki: what i meant was to copy paste to the talk page, then discuss, and work on it there. You cant copy paste to the article mainspace directly, as then people will delete it saying it is a copyright violation. So yes, everything has to be re-written in your own words, but you need to be very careful how you do it, to make sure you dont add your own WP:OR into what you are getting from the source. Make sense? Also please be aware of this WP:SOAP when making edits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add a Legal issues section

Please add a Legal issues section[15]. Jidanni (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jidanni: please find us some WP:RS for this. We can't use youtube, not an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I see on YouTube it says

Sources:

.../ybko2f6h - Fincen Bitcoin mining

.../ycxwocmh -IRS Third Party Settlement

.../cd398vb - LN Node Map

Alas I cannot find any scripts (text versions of what he read to the camera) even on his http://bitthink.info/. I will try to tell him to on his YouTube comments.

Jidanni (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, keep digging, maybe you can find some RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin Cash

Bitcoin Cash should be mentioned in the lead as the other alternative to the so-called "bitcoin scalability problem". That article's lead explains that BCH is the result of a disagreement over scaling and since LN is about scaling its inclusion here is appropriate. Any objections? - Shiftchange (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think Bitcoin Cash should be only mentioned in context that it does not support Lightning Network (and probably never will) due to design decisions. - Dmitry Platonov (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I also object, dont add more trash here. You need to find sources for the content you are adding. WP:SOAP applies here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Its not promoting a thing. It is providing context, explaining. The bitcoin scalability problem article lists the multiple solutions. The Bitcoin Cash article mentions Segwit. Once again bias is demonstrated against BCH. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Then keep BCH in bitcoin scalability problem, I have no objection for it to be there. Link to this article is in the first paragraph, anyone who needs context can get it there. Bias is demonstrated by trying to stick BCH mention in every article about bitcoin. Dmitry Platonov (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Bcash is irrelevant to the subject. Promoting them here is nothing but spam. 124.168.139.205 (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The lead is confusing

I don't understand how LN can be a scaling solution when the lead states that "Normal use of the Lightning Network consists of opening a payment channel by committing a funding transaction to the relevant blockchain". So to start to scale Bitcoin via LN users need to make a Bitcoin transaction? How can that scale with capacity limited to 7 transactions per second? - Shiftchange (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You can do an infinite number of transactions for that single on-chain ledger record. It's probably worth mentioning "Channel Factories" somewhere in the article. https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/67187/72577 These allow for a 90% fee saving. While channels can remain open for years and the base blockchain capacity will also increase over time. 124.168.139.205 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

POV edits

Seems the POV edits have arrived on this page. I reverted this [16] edit by Davidswiki (talk · contribs). Maybe this page needs more RS patrol as well (cited sources include youtube, medium, forbes contributor, and coindesk), all trash. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I've handed out a topic ban. It's not the first time that user has attempted to insert that content (see above). MER-C 20:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliability section lacks credible sources

Reliability section has two sources: some anonymous study on diar.co (blog?) and word-for-word cointelegraph article. Some of the source data in diar.co taken from reddit ("Probability To Successfully Route A Payment Between Nodes (% vs. USD)" graph), and text does not match graph. --Dmitry Platonov (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Is cointelegraph not a reliable source? It is used in lots of other articles. Volunteer1234 (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)]]

I can see cointelegraph as passable source for news, but not for research. Their article is nothing more then rewrite of diar.co "study". If anything, their article does not claim facts in questionable section, just reports findings by the "study". So section should read something along the lines "in 2018 anonymous non-peer reviewed self-published article claimed such and such", but not present article's findings as facts. --Dmitry Platonov (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Cointelegraph is not an RS. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_242#Cointelegraph_source. They accept paid articles and dont disclose it. Costs about 2BTC if i recall. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

LIT

LIT is not compatible with other implementations, and does not target compatibility. https://github.com/mit-dci/lit/issues/140 Maybe we should not bundle it with others and clarify that LIT is another flavor of Lightning? --Dmitry Platonov (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

teaching materials and learning resources at the bottom of the article

User Jtbobwaysf has removed the section of openly licensed teaching materials on wikimedia commons - which I have added to the article - with the statement "not suitable". c.f.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lightning_Network&type=revision&diff=853437558&oldid=853161264

I am not very active in the english chapter of the wikipedia however I am curious: I think I frequently saw that there are references to wikimedia commons on wikipedia articles. Also as someone being involved to the development of the lightning network I can attest that the technology is very young and we need more educated people and thus teaching materials. I am currently trying to curate and create openly licensed teaching materials so I would like to know what the opinion of the community is. -- Renepick (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Renepick: I like the work you have done, and I think it is useful. However, I just felt it was user-generated content. Note, I could be totally off base on this though. I'll ping a couple of editors and ask them. @MER-C: or @Jytdog: do you have any comments on this? Was I correct or incorrect to delete this? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes: the gallery was too much emphasis. I'd suggest {{commonscat}} or similar. MER-C 14:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I have just added the {{commonscat}} template. I know that this is rather common on wikipedia. However I see two problems with this. First I believe only users very familiar with wikipedia actually recognize and use that box. second on the long term there will be many media files in that category. So I suggest to add the gallery again with the 5 or 6 "best" media contents. Also on a side note: @Jtbobwaysf:: what do you mean with user-generated content? -- Renepick (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Renepick: i thought that this gallery included links to powerpoint presentations that you had created (hence the user generated content comment). Another editor is above also suggesting adding a video he created. But frankly the diagram at the top of this page (in place of the logo) also appears to be user generated. Thus, I am a bit of a loss here on what to do. Note, I dont think this content is bad, I was simply just wondering if it complies with policy. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: yeah I had created the ppt but I don't see a problem. Wikipedia articles are also created by us. I mean someone has to do it (: If I find the time I wanted to actually extract some graphics from the ppt and include them within the wikipedia article. Just because it does not happen so often of wikipedia I don't think it is a problem to enhance wikipedia articles with openly licensed materials. Actually as an open advocate I think it is actually even good if it would happen more frequently. edit: of course only as long as the content meets the quality standards of wikipedia projects -- Renepick (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Explainer video for the article head

Just created a Lightning Network explainer video. Let me know what you think. Posting here first in case I got something wrong in the scope of a very high level explanation. @Jtbobwaysf: @Davidswiki: @Ysangkok: @Laurencedeclan: – Kjerish (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I like the video. I also liked the video's above done by Renepick (talk · contribs) and I deleted them as I was not sure of the relating policy. I will loop in MER-C (talk · contribs) and see his comment on this. MER-C, should we admit some of this content? I am a bit of a loss, as I find the comment useful, but then I feel guilty for deleting the content by Renepick and not really understanding your suggestion on how to add it through the category. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Bitcoin had a similar video for a while. Not sure what happened to it. I actually agree with you on that edit. What you removed was a gallery of an 80 page pdf that is actually just a powerpoint presentation, and a half hour long lecture that's also on YouTube, that would probably be better viewed there. Don't get me wrong I love those formats, I just don't think they're the right "form factor" in this context, mostly because of the amount of time required to get to the point. Maybe they can be re-introduced with a different presentation. I do think we should change the flagship image at least though, because it's ugly, it's not in SVG format (or even transparent PNG), and it's about a related subject but not the core subject. – Kjerish (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kjerish: Wow, i hadn't noticed the flagship image issue, you are right it is really strange. Is there a lightning network logo? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The lightning network is tough to emblemize because it's an abstract concept that's also decentralized so there's no single entity working on it and generally open-source so there's no traditional branding. Bitcoin was similar in the beginning, and the lightning network isn't mature enough for branding consensus. The closest thing it could be in a picture is a cryptographic data structure but it doesn't make much sense without a time component. I was going to encode my video as a gif but thought that would be frowned upon for ~1:30. It would be nice to find someone with a good enough voice for a voiceover. I have a really good mic but my voice isn't the greatest – Kjerish (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kjerish: thanks for your video! this is great content and highly appriciated. I am currently planning to create more teaching materials over at Wikiversity where I will soon include your video. Where should I state errors in your video? For example you said the funding transaction is broadcast to the blockchain and then commitment transactions will be created. That is technically not true as the first pair of commitment transactions is created and signed before the funding tx is being broadcast to the blockchain. -- Renepick (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Renepick: I was under the impression that you CAN combine an initial commitment transaction to the funding transaction (and is indeed the typical case) but don't have to. I will re-upload to reflect those changes in a few hours or so. Are there any other errors? – Kjerish (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I answered to you on c:File_talk:Lightning_Network_Explained.webm --Renepick (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

source

here [17] is a nice source from Financial Times on Segwit and Lightning. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I would take opinions of FT Alphaville authors with a lot of caution. It seems to be some sort of a blog related to Financial Times in some way. In particular, Izabella Kaminska, the author of this piece seemed to be quite confused about some things in the past. I would say it fine if she states facts, but opinions at least should be attributed. Retimuko (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I didnt know that. Thanks for the feedback! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

additional RS

some quick additional WP:RS, as this article seems to be light on RS and heavy on primary

• https://fortune.com/2019/07/29/here-comes-the-irs-the-ledger/
• https://fortune.com/2019/01/17/unit-e-cryptocurrency-news-bitcoin/
• https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/12/04/1575457459000/By-Jove--Crypto-has-discovered-netting/
• https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/06/12/1560351485000/SegWit-and-the-bitcoin-transaction-fee-conspiracy-theory/
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-17/mit-stanford-academics-design-cryptocurrency-to-better-bitcoin
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/crypto-legend-who-bought-pizza-with-10-000-bitcoin-is-back-at-it

Should be more, this was just a quick source. The netting article in fortune might be good for content as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion? Are you kidding?

The Lightning Network is the biggest thing since Bitcoin, and will guide crypto into the next century for scalability, real-world applications, reduction in transaction costs, &c. Darn right it's notable. Get rid of that silly tag already. JLMadrigal @ 22:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: You are welcome to share your thoughts on this article's deletion entry, especially if they are in reference to Wikipedia's policies. Otherwise, this talk page should be used for discussions on what changes should be made to bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards. — Kjerish (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources? References to github

Is there a wikipedia protocol for referencing implementations on github? A significant number of citations could be covered in the documentation for the protocol :

• https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/00-introduction.md

There are precedents that these types of links are acceptable in things like this listing C programming family implementations :

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C-family_programming_languages

I think the article could be improved by referencing the actual network protocol documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.29.212 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The endorsement by Jack Dorsey isn't really cited. There's "a source", but checking it - it's a conservative tabloid in England with 1 throwaway line that isn't a quote - it's totally hearsay. Jack Dorsey endorsement should be deleted, or cited in a reliable way. - mattbots - I don't edit wiki much so apologies if I'm not formatting this well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.169.8.25 (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

2019 Bitcoin Lightning Torch

The lightning torch was a notable event in the network's history and I believe it should be included. Bitcoinist, CoinDesk, Cointelegraph, and Yahoo! Finance covered the event, but their reputability is questioned. There are tweets and payment histories to support the information in those articles. I have included my draft text below: Jestopher1 (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

−

File:Lightning Network Torch Bearers.jpg

A mosaic of lightning torch bearer user photos combined to form the space cat image used by pseudonymous twitter user @hodlonaut who started the lightning torch.

− On January 19, 2019, pseudonymous Twitter user hodlonaut began a game-like promotional test of the Lightning network by sending 100,000 satoshis (0.01 Bitcoin) to a trusted recipient where each recipient added 10,000 satoshis ($0.34 at the time) to send to the next trusted recipient. The "lightning torch" payment reached notable personalities including Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Lightning Labs CEO Elizabeth Stark, and Binance CEO "CZ" Changpeng Zhao, among others. The lightning torch was passed 292 times before reaching the formerly hard-coded limit of 4,390,000 satoshis. The final payment of the lightning torch was sent on April 13, 2019 as a donation of 4,290,000 satoshis ($217.78 at the time) to Bitcoin Venezuela, a non-profit that raises awareness of Bitcoin in Venezuela.

Excellent content. WE need a WP:RS for this I am guessing. Please see if you can find a mainstream source. I am not sure if the image requires a mainsteam source though, haven't faced that issue. I support adding it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Okay I was able to find Fortune Magazine, CNBC, and NASDAQ.com articles about the Lightning Torch that rehashed the information in the CoinDesk article. After reading the RfC on use of CoinDesk, There's a few aspects of this article that answer some of the concerns about CoinDesk's use in general that make its use here a good exception. I don't see promotional content included; there is nothing to sell. The article was written in a neutral tone. The author has written for Vice, Mic, and Reason (to answer notability concerns of the author), is a self-proclaimed programmer, and does not hold value in any digital currencies or projects. Additionally, Andreas Antonopoulos was interviewed as part of the article for expert opinion. Therefore, I think an exception could be made that the article is a reliable source while the publication as a whole isn't when considering context. Jestopher1 (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Its ok if Fortune and CNBC rehash coindesk, totally ok. We just can't use coindesk. Also Nasdaq is often just press releases, and/or word for word copy of other sources such as bitcoin magazine and coindesk. If Nasdaq is word for word entire article reprint, we cant use it. But if it is a quality news source like cnbc and they quote coindesk, or rehash coindesk, it is fine. Is that more clear? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the coindesk and nasdaq sources (which are just reprints from bitcoin magazine) from the article as there is consensus that these are not to be used. I left the twitter sources (clearly primary), but maybe allowable since the statement of holdonaut might be self sourced here. But I guess other editors might think otherwise about twitter. But I am glad you added hte section, and the WP:RS that you did add are sufficient to keep the section in my opinion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little nervous about going without the coindesk references. When I said that the others rehashed the coindesk article, I meant that they provided some additional coverage that corroborated the coindesk article. They don't have enough information to substantiate the statements that I included in the text. Also, the twitter sources just got removed, which is leaving the sourcing pretty sparse. Thoughts? Jestopher1 (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

We cant use coindesk as per wikipedia policy. But the section does have two RS already, maybe the content will get left alone. We will see. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Lightning Network Benefits

Here is my draft text to include for benefits on using the lightning network compared to on-chain transactions. I was citing Mastering Bitcoin by Andreas Antonopoulous and the added text was removed in combination with other edits that I made that may have had less reputable sources. Jestopher1 (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

− There are several benefits to using the Lightning Network compared to on-chain transactions.

−

• Granularity: Transactions on the Lightning network allow for payments that are smaller than a satoshi, the smallest unit on the base layer of bitcoin. Routing fees paid to intermediary nodes on the Lightning Network are frequently denominated in millisatoshis or msat.

−

• Privacy: Individual Lightning network payments are not public and may be routed through many sequential channels. Each node operator will be able to see payments across their channels, but they will not be able to see the source or destination of those funds if they are non-adjacent.

−

• Speed: Settlement time for lightning network transactions is under a minute and can occur in milliseconds. Confirmation time on the bitcoin blockchain, for comparison, occurs every ten minutes, on average.

−

• Transaction Throughput: There are no fundamental limits to the amount of payments per second that can occur under the protocol. The amount of transactions are only limited by the capacity and speed of each node.

The Antonopolous source is an RS. I guess the rest are not. Maybe you can source most of this from the book. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jestopher1: Nice edits. Please try to find one or two more WP:RS to support this section. Maybe a source to support the privacy statement too. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Will do! The Little Bitcoin Book has more on privacy albeit less technical than aantonop. I'll see what I can add. Jestopher1 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I moved your comment up above the reflist and added indentation for your comment. Please do that in the future. Sometimes people will flag a section that has a single source, so if you can at least add one or two more sources for the section it would be better (still cant rule out the section getting tagged), but always better to prepare for it on these type of controversial articles. Its great someone is adding content to this article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Watchtowers

Covered topics on watchtowers should include why they're needed and the longevity of the need. Eltoo may play a role in making them obsolete. See [18]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Lightning Network Torch Bearers.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jestopher1: this is about the image (pinging bc you added the content). There are different rules for images that are tricky. Maybe you can argue (over at commons) that the image is public domain since it is on twitter. But I am not sure about that, you will have to research it. Maybe the commons nominator for deletion will help you, since I am not an expert on it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I got permission from CryptoScamHub to make it Creative Commons. I'll dive in to the discussion.Jestopher1 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

lightning labs

Seems some news

• Forbes Staff Writer today about lightning labs, noting Twitter's Jack Dorsey, Robinhood's Vlad Tenev, and Litecoin's Charlie Lee" are backers.
• Fortune profile
• Fortune -The Ledger newsletter
• NYT Stark CEO mention

Thought I would keep here for now in case more develops to attest notability. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Strange edits

@NeedAUsername44: i rolled back your edits in which you added a lot of content sourced by dubious sources. You are aware that we are only using top shelf sources. @The Anome: your edits (right in the same time frame as NeedAUsername) changed the description to apply that Lightning is running on something other than bitcoin. Are there sources for that? Are your two accounts related? (just curious due to the timing of the edits, nothing else implied. Maybe you two were just editing at the same time? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with that other account, and all my contributions have been properly cited with reliable sources. Please don't roll back edits with proper citations again. Thank you. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Which specifically of these sources you added are RS? In my view none of them are. It's not ok to re-insert disputed content in an article that is subject to WP:GS FYI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I also have nothing to do with @NeedAUsername44:. You're right, my edit could be taken to imply that non-Bitcoin implementations exist, so I've changed things so it is unambiguous. -- The Anome (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I think you both were just editing at the same time, happens from time to time. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

'such as bitcoin'

@The Anome: do we have any evidence (with RS) that state that lightning was designed for something else besides bitcoin? Even the whitepaper would work for me, although I am not sure others would accept that (as we are not using primary sources on cyrpto articles). I am just trying to understand if this statement is both controversial and poorly sourced or if it is non-controversial (in the whitepaper) and yet poorly sourced. For me the latter is not a big deal, but the former doesnt work. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Here you have Lightning Labs mentioning it 2017: [19]. There is also a chain_hash in the protocol[20]. If it should only work for bitcoin, you could save bandwidth by sending e.g. just a single byte (assuming bitcoin will not have more than 255 testnets). And LND still supports litecoin.[21] --Ysangkok (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

None of these are WP:RS. I have adjusted the line. ILoveFinance (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The LN is a technological failure

Like most cryptocurrency-related articles, the text of this one is written mostly by people with vested interests, aiming to promote investment in Bitcoin. The reality is that the concept of the LN has a long list of fatal flaws, that do not seem to be solvable. Those are not even mentioned in the lead section, and the relevant section not even begins to enumerate them.
To mention a few: there is no usable algorithm to find a route between two nodes that are not neighbors and do not have a common neighbor; the cost and delay of opering and closing channels will be absurdly excessive; the concept only works if payments to and from each node are balanced over a scale of months or so; payment paths in a network of millions of nodes would be way too long and unlikely to exist; the punishment transactions waste resources and are not very effective in deterring fraudulent closures; nodes, especially hubs, would have to lock up excessive amounts of capital for outgoing channels; and the network would be vulnerable to many kinds of DoS, spam, and spooking attacks.
Six years after launch, the LN still has fewer than 30'000 nodes and its growth is slow and decelerating. This fact too is never mentioned in the lead.
I don't know what can be done to fix this "cryptocurrency plague" in Wikipedia. The promoters are numerous and well-financed, and seems to be able to censor out most criticism. Sigh...
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Granted this is an old comment, some brief thoughts:

The article is not in good shape overall. It is being improved (either by removing non RS and/or adding RS).

Failure or not, that would be OR to claim. If there are WP:RS stating it is a failure, for x, y, and z reasons, then it could be included somewhere. If you have those, please list them! But in the meantime, we cannot just write beliefs. ILoveFinance (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Push by data network only for Soumi language

Come and ride like mine wishes and you get horny also slower by your side. 119.30.38.213 (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Implementations

This entire section Lightning_Network#Implementations is problematic and seems to based on poor sourcing. I am thinking we might need to WP:SECTIONBLANK it. Is there anything that has WP:RS that we can keep? Note to new users, blogs, corporate websites, github, etc are all not RS. Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding here per WP:PRESERVE. I blank the section from the article as not a single WP:RS and seems to be a growing catch-all for WP:UNDUE projects. If the editors can find RS for these, please feel to re-add one by one. RS for crypto is mainstream high quality sources, and cannot be blogs, etc. I would actually prefer that some of the most uncontroversial content stay, such as BOLT, etc. But I cannot justify keeping it now, as I am removing the rest. Please feel free to comment. But much of the other content seems promotional at this time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and cleaned much OR. There were also a couple instances of sources not at all discussing what was described in the preceding sentence. However, where sources were RS, I have retained them, either by moving or adding content that was the basis of the article. Example: TechCrunch reported that Cash App added support for Lightning Network in 2022, so that is now stated. ILoveFinance (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

BOLT (Basis of Lightning Technology) specifications were drafted in late 2016. Several implementations were made:

• Lightning Labs' LND (Lightning Network Daemon) implementation in Go
• Blockstream's Core Lightning (CLN) implementation in C
• ACINQ's eclair implementation in Scala
• Other community projects (e.g. "rust-lightning" and "DotNetLightning") in other languages such as Rust and F#.
• Hydranet’s Lightning network based L3 Decentralized Exchange called Hydranet DEX
• A non-commercial implementation by MIT Digital Currency Initiative using its own non-BOLT-compatible protocol in Golang

Lightning network enables near-instant payments. This feature was critical for the adoption of Bitcoin in these communities

• Bitcoin Beach, El Zonte, El Salvador
• Bitcoin Island, Boracay, Philippines
• Bitcoin Jungle, Golden Triangle, Costa Rica
• Bitcoin Ekasi, Mossel Bay, South Africa
• Bitcoin Lake, Panajachel, Guatemala

For the end-user of lightning, there are several wallets available

• Wallet of Satoshi
• BlueWallet
• Muun
• Phoenix
• Bitcoin lightning wallet
• Breez
• Lightning labs' wallet

Wallets can be either custodial vs non-custodial. Custodial means that the private keys for the underlying bitcoin are in control of a custodian not the end-user. This custodial relationship simplifies the user experience but also introduces counterparty risk. Custodial solutions allow for connections to national banking systems. The following wallets all connect to their national banks, allowing the wallets to act as bitcoin exchanges also.

• Strike app (United States)
• Pouch.ph (Philippines)
• Bottlepay (European Union)

References