<p>as far as predictions into the future can be right or wrong, only future will tell!
When it comes to the author of the article, he is a deep proponent of the idea, that lightning is a bad thing for the future of bitcoin. You can read alot more about his position and corresponding posts <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2854596.0" rel="nofollow noreferrer">on bitcointalk</a>. </p>

<p>There are two things that get repeated over and over again (mostly by proponents of the bcash world): bitcoin cannot scale with lightning, and lightning is centralized ("banking hubs"). </p>

<p>The current reality looks <a href="https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a lot different</a>: there are more than 2500 nodes and more than 6000 channels open, and for a beta phase software for micro payments I think this is a huge success. I am convinced it can help to solve bitcoin scaling issues. For sure! It might not solve everything, but there are others activities next to lightning, and that's good. But look, this is only my personal opinion. </p>

<p>Hence I propose to close the question, as it is mostly opinion based, and only time will tell, what becomes true. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-18T18:27:21.967Z
Agreed, a better q would be how does LN solve the scalability problem, or even better specific questions about how it works.
JBaczuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-18T18:11:10.253Z
2018-07-18T18:11:10.253Z
pebwindkraft
<p>from what i managed to understand(if i got it right), the lightning network is supposed to work by using "channels" which can be created by some users with some seller and also be used by anyone who have a channel with someone who have a channel open with the seller so there is a network of users connecting each other to other users so when someone have an open channel with someone he doesn't have to open another channel for every seller that sell stuff in exchange for bitcoin. and basically people pay with the lightning network by using bitcoins from other people's channels?.
anyway i readed this article <a href="https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800</a><br>
i didn't got too much into the details of the article but it claims that the lightning network is "Completely Unworkable System" and won't help with the bitcoin scalability problem. so who is right? the LN developers or the writers of this article?.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-18T17:57:01.493Z
It appears the main claim of the article is that the LN cannot be decentralized, which seems to be an assertion that may or may not be directly related to scalability.
JBaczuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-18T18:31:43.080Z
I've responded to Fyookball's article here: https://medium.com/@murchandamus/i-have-just-read-jonald-fyookballs-article-https-medium-com-jonaldfyookball-mathematical-fd112d13737a
Murch
<lightning-network>
does Lightning Network can work and solve Bitcoin scalability problem?
Eleanor
# does Lightning Network can work and solve Bitcoin scalability problem?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-07-18)

from what i managed to understand(if i got it right), the lightning network is supposed to work by using "channels" which can be created by some users with some seller and also be used by anyone who have a channel with someone who have a channel open with the seller so there is a network of users connecting each other to other users so when someone have an open channel with someone he doesn't have to open another channel for every seller that sell stuff in exchange for bitcoin. and basically people pay with the lightning network by using bitcoins from other people's channels?.
anyway i readed this article <https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800>  
i didn't got too much into the details of the article but it claims that the lightning network is "Completely Unworkable System" and won't help with the bitcoin scalability problem. so who is right? the LN developers or the writers of this article?.

**Tags:** lightning-network

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It appears the main claim of the article is that the LN cannot be decentralized, which seems to be an assertion that may or may not be directly related to scalability.  
> **username_2**: I've responded to Fyookball's article here: https://medium.com/@murchandamus/i-have-just-read-jonald-fyookballs-article-https-medium-com-jonaldfyookball-mathematical-fd112d13737a  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-07-18. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

as far as predictions into the future can be right or wrong, only future will tell!
When it comes to the author of the article, he is a deep proponent of the idea, that lightning is a bad thing for the future of bitcoin. You can read alot more about his position and corresponding posts [on bitcointalk](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2854596.0).

There are two things that get repeated over and over again (mostly by proponents of the bcash world): bitcoin cannot scale with lightning, and lightning is centralized ("banking hubs").

The current reality looks [a lot different](https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/): there are more than 2500 nodes and more than 6000 channels open, and for a beta phase software for micro payments I think this is a huge success. I am convinced it can help to solve bitcoin scaling issues. For sure! It might not solve everything, but there are others activities next to lightning, and that's good. But look, this is only my personal opinion.

Hence I propose to close the question, as it is mostly opinion based, and only time will tell, what becomes true.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Agreed, a better q would be how does LN solve the scalability problem, or even better specific questions about how it works.  

---

