Quote from: sjefdeklerk on March 14, 2018, 06:10:02 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on February 22, 2018, 10:16:33 PM

It's one of those things where you just need to give it a bit of time. Lightning is still in beta and it hasn't even been on mainnet that long yet. All the stuff that will make it easy and user-friendly will come later. Also, not everyone has to be using Lightning for it to take some of the pressure off layer 0. Any payment-channel-routed transaction is a transaction not taking up space in the blockchain. If all the people using it only have to use up space in blocks when they open and close channels, they could still send thousands of transactions that will never touch the blockchain until the final balance is settled, so that's still going to be less traffic than we see generally. It all helps reduce congestion on the network.

Did you read any of my points?

Did you read any of mine? I'll make a few more just in case:

Quote from: sjefdeklerk on January 20, 2018, 06:44:54 PM

Who is going to lock up his money in several channels anyway ? Liquidity, needed for routing money, is going to be a problem

The more you use Lightning and the more channels you have open, the greater the potential savings on fees. Each time you can avoid making on-chain transactions, that's one less mining fee to pay. Financial incentive will be the driving force for having multiple channels open. Incentive itself will provide the liquidity. Users can also incentivise routing by adjusting the fees they charge, even charging negative fees (effectively paying anyone who routes through them), so there may be situations where you can rebalance a channel rather than having to open a new one.

Quote from: sjefdeklerk on February 19, 2018, 07:18:31 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on February 19, 2018, 07:13:59 PM

So you'll end up taking a different route, most likely without you even noticing. You aren't forced to route through people with insufficient funds.

My point is that there simply might not be a route with enough funding.

Lightning opens up two new choices for how to transact. Opening a new channel, or routing through one of your existing open channels. If this scenario of no sufficiently funded channels occurs, you might not be able to route through an existing channel, true enough. So you open a new channel. Or you send a regular on-chain transaction. Not exactly rocket science. Plus, that's still more options overall than you previously had, so if one of the two new choices isn't available, that doesn't constitute a failure. I'd rather not repeat myself, but, "the only "problem" it creates is that you now have a choice which you didn't have before. There will be times where you might use Lightning because it's cheaper, more convenient, or both. There will be other times where it won't be those things and you can transact as you always have done". How can something that gives you more freedom and choice than you previously had possibly be a bad thing? I can see how it might look bad if you haven't taken the time to comprehend how it works, but that means the failure is on your part and not Lightning's.

Quote from: sjefdeklerk on February 19, 2018, 07:18:31 PM

Quote

But if someone does attempt to defraud you and you catch them, you can take their funds. That's a rather strong disincentive to try ripping people off.

It is. But you're never 100% sure, which means that you actively NEED to monitor all of your channels for fraud. That's really a big downside.

You don't have to personally sit there and stare at it 24/7. By "monitor", you mean your software simply has to be online. I know plenty of people who are online 24/7. It won't be a downside to any of them. Work has also started on an idea for what they're calling "watchtowers", which will step in to monitor for you if you're offline for whatever reason. If watchtowers are successful and become the norm, you won't have to worry about monitoring your channels. As I said before, all the stuff that will make it easy and user-friendly will come later. Give it time.

Quote from: sjefdeklerk on February 19, 2018, 07:18:31 PM

Quote

Which is why Lightning is completely optional and you can still send regular payments to be confirmed directly on the blockchain, just like you always have done.

This is no argument at all.

It's an argument you don't have an answer for, you mean. Lightning is not designed to replace on-chain transactions altogether. If you're suggesting that it is, no wonder your arguments seem so skewed.