<blockquote>
<p>Lightning Network, as it's described, seems to solve all the problems with Bitcoin.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That's not true. I would even say that Ligntning Network doesn't on its own solve any of Bitcoin's problems, but it does go a long way towards solving several of them (scalability and privacy).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I'm unable to accept payments due to the insane fees, but would be able to if Lightning Network were supported.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are invoicing solutions that support Lightning Network, for example <a href="https://btcpayserver.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">BTCPay Server</a>. Considering Bitcoin Core as the only &quot;serious&quot; Bitcoin-related software is short-sighted as there is absolutely no reason for that. For example, I doubt many people would prefer storing their life savings in Bitcoin Core instead of a hardware wallet.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Why is not the &quot;real&quot; Bitcoin project working on its own &quot;layer 2&quot;, as a core feature of Bitcoin ... ?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is where I cover the rest of the question.</p>
<p>Bitcoin Core is the most widely used implementation of a Bitcoin node, but it's not the only one and anyone is free to implement their own version, as long as it follows the same protocol rules.</p>
<p>Similarly, there are multiple implementations of a Lightning node, and perhaps over time we will see the ecosystem converge on one of them being by far the most widely used, however there is no reason why it should be developed under the same project as Bitcoin Core.</p>
<p>Quite the opposite, I don't believe Bitcoin Core developers should leverage their position in order to favor any specific Layer 2 solution over another, and implementing their own into Bitcoin Core would be doing exactly that. I think it's much better for Bitcoin Core developers to bring upgrades that all Layer 2 solutions can take advantage of, such as Taproot.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T03:26:06.317Z
"I doubt many people would prefer storing their life savings in Bitcoin Core instead of a hardware wallet." Well, I'm one of them. Those hardware wallets are way less secure, cost a lot of money, and advertise to everyone that you have coins. Not to mention they cannot be automated to actually power any kind of payment system.
Kohlton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T03:27:12.480Z
As for the rest of your answer, I still get the feeling that you, too, basically "hand-wave" the issue away, seemingly in no rush whatsoever to finally get this thing going. ("This thing" being Bitcoin.)
Kohlton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T03:28:30.380Z
Also, trusting "BTCPay Server" would be unthinkable to me.
Kohlton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T04:59:08.087Z
You don't need to trust anyone. Both Bitcoin Core and BTCPay Server are open source software that you can review and build for yourself. There is no reason why one should be trusted more than the other.
Vojtěch Strnad
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T05:00:29.957Z
"Verify yourself"... Right. Good joke.
Kohlton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T05:01:04.227Z
As expected, there's no real answers/responses -- only trolls who downvote anything that questions the status quo.
Kohlton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-07T00:17:06.130Z
@Kohlton if the only software you are willing to use is bitcoin-core, and you are unhappy that bitcoin-core doesn't currently include a lightning-network implementation, then why don't you open a pull request to get that work started, rather than repeatedly posting complaints to this website, under a new alias each time?
chytrik
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T03:12:09.797Z
2021-06-06T03:12:09.797Z
Vojtěch Strnad
<p>Lightning Network, as it's described, seems to solve all the problems with Bitcoin. I'm unable to accept payments due to the insane fees, but would be able to if Lightning Network were supported.</p>
<p>But it's not supported in Bitcoin Core.</p>
<p>Why is not the &quot;real&quot; Bitcoin project working on its own &quot;layer 2&quot;, as a core feature of Bitcoin?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T02:53:11.300Z
Stop downvoting for no reason, FFS.
Kohlton
<bitcoin-core><lightning-network><bitcoin-core-development><development><marketing>
If the Lightning Network is so great, why is it "level 2", not stable and not built into Bitcoin Core?
Kohlton
# If the Lightning Network is so great, why is it "level 2", not stable and not built into Bitcoin Core?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-06-06)

Lightning Network, as it's described, seems to solve all the problems with Bitcoin. I'm unable to accept payments due to the insane fees, but would be able to if Lightning Network were supported.

But it's not supported in Bitcoin Core.

Why is not the "real" Bitcoin project working on its own "layer 2", as a core feature of Bitcoin?

**Tags:** bitcoin-core, lightning-network, bitcoin-core-development, development, marketing

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Stop downvoting for no reason, FFS.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-06-06. Score: 3

> Lightning Network, as it's described, seems to solve all the problems with Bitcoin.

That's not true. I would even say that Ligntning Network doesn't on its own solve any of Bitcoin's problems, but it does go a long way towards solving several of them (scalability and privacy).

> I'm unable to accept payments due to the insane fees, but would be able to if Lightning Network were supported.

There are invoicing solutions that support Lightning Network, for example [BTCPay Server](https://btcpayserver.org/). Considering Bitcoin Core as the only "serious" Bitcoin-related software is short-sighted as there is absolutely no reason for that. For example, I doubt many people would prefer storing their life savings in Bitcoin Core instead of a hardware wallet.

> Why is not the "real" Bitcoin project working on its own "layer 2", as a core feature of Bitcoin ... ?

This is where I cover the rest of the question.

Bitcoin Core is the most widely used implementation of a Bitcoin node, but it's not the only one and anyone is free to implement their own version, as long as it follows the same protocol rules.

Similarly, there are multiple implementations of a Lightning node, and perhaps over time we will see the ecosystem converge on one of them being by far the most widely used, however there is no reason why it should be developed under the same project as Bitcoin Core.

Quite the opposite, I don't believe Bitcoin Core developers should leverage their position in order to favor any specific Layer 2 solution over another, and implementing their own into Bitcoin Core would be doing exactly that. I think it's much better for Bitcoin Core developers to bring upgrades that all Layer 2 solutions can take advantage of, such as Taproot.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: "I doubt many people would prefer storing their life savings in Bitcoin Core instead of a hardware wallet." Well, I'm one of them. Those hardware wallets are way less secure, cost a lot of money, and advertise to everyone that you have coins. Not to mention they cannot be automated to actually power any kind of payment system.  
> **username_0**: As for the rest of your answer, I still get the feeling that you, too, basically "hand-wave" the issue away, seemingly in no rush whatsoever to finally get this thing going. ("This thing" being Bitcoin.)  
> **username_0**: Also, trusting "BTCPay Server" would be unthinkable to me.  
> **username_1**: You don't need to trust anyone. Both Bitcoin Core and BTCPay Server are open source software that you can review and build for yourself. There is no reason why one should be trusted more than the other.  
> **username_0**: "Verify yourself"... Right. Good joke.  
> **username_0**: As expected, there's no real answers/responses -- only trolls who downvote anything that questions the status quo.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 if the only software you are willing to use is bitcoin-core, and you are unhappy that bitcoin-core doesn't currently include a lightning-network implementation, then why don't you open a pull request to get that work started, rather than repeatedly posting complaints to this website, under a new alias each time?  

---

