The Lightning Network is so Great that it Has all Kinds of Problems

[Author's Note] Apparently this article has gone somewhat viral and, in turn, it has become quite controversial. I would like to add this note. I am a huge fan of the Lightning Network. I think it offers a fantastic opportunity to off-load the vast majority of LOW-VALUE payments from the bitcoin network; and that is a really good thing. However, I see numerous problems with the notion that it can off-load virtually allpayments, including high-value payments, and that users will keep high-value payment channels open, exclusively, for six months at a time. Maybe I'm wrong, and time will tell. However, I think all of the concerns raised in this article are legitimate, and we will see how it plays out over time.

［作者注］这篇文章明显有点病毒营销性质，而且很有争议性。我很乐意加上这个注。我是闪电网络的热衷粉丝。我认为它提供了一种巧妙的方式来减少比特币网络大量的大部分的低价值支付的负荷；这真是一件很棒的事。尽管如此，我发现这个概念（它可以虚拟地减少所有交易的负荷，包括高价值的交易，用户只需六个月一次地保证高价值支付频道开通）存在大量问题。或许我错了，但时间会证明一切。不管怎样，我认为文中提到的所有的担心都是合理的，在一段时间后我们将会看到结果如何。

To those who are proposing the Lighting Network as a solution for the mythical 'cup of coffee' problem, I'm right there with you. I believe it could be a godsend for not only that use-case but many other small-value transaction use-cases which were impossible before.

针对有些人提出闪电网络是神奇的‘一杯咖啡的时间’（形容比较快）的问题的解决方案，我是支持他们的。我认为它是一种天赐之物，不仅是那种场景，而且还有很多以前无法实现的其他小额交易场景。

However, to those who claim people will only ever need to perform two transactions every six months, that 100% of all payment transactions can be off-ramped to the Lightning Network, that 100% of the entire bitcoin transaction processing capacity will be consumed by simply opening and closing channels, and that tens of billions of dollars of value will be locked up into payment channels with no loss of decentralization and unaffected by regulation, I still think these claims are absurd. I also think that the claimed multiplier factor for how many users can take advantage of the LN without a corresponding block-size increase, remain off by more than an order of magnitude.

尽管如此，那些声称人们只需要每六个月进行两次交易，100%的全部交易就可以通过闪电网络离线加速，100%的整个比特币交易容量被简单的打开和关闭渠道来消化，而且数百亿美金的资产会被锁定在交易渠道里，同时不会失去去中心化和不受审查的优点，我认为这些观点是荒唐的。我同时认为，声称在没有相应区块增长的情况下在到底会有多少用户会享受到闪电网络的优点的人，保持了相当一个数量级。

This article is not an anti-lighting network article. How could it be? I think the Lightning Network is awesome. This is a reality check article. One that questions how long is it going to take, and just how much can it really accomplish, and the risks involved along the way. These are all legitimate questions to ask!

这篇文章不是反对闪电网络的。那它是怎样的呢？我认为闪电网络是令人惊叹的。这是一篇检验现实的文章。一个问题是，它需要花多长时间，它可以真正实现到什么程度，而且风险会一直存在。这些合理的问题都需要被提问。

I wanted to make a quick post about the Lightning Network for the community. Let me begin by stating that I think the idea behind the Lightning Network is brilliant. It is a truly incredible application of ‘smart contracts’ that is capable of achieving a new kind of financial system I don’t believe the world has ever seen before. It is based on technical concepts which simply cannot exist in the ‘real world’ of corruptible banks and courts.

我想为社区写一篇关于闪电网络的简洁的文章。让我们开始吧，首先我认为闪电网络背后的想法是极好的。它是一种类似于智能合约一样的，真的难以置信的应用，它实现了一种我相信迄今为止不存在的金融系统。它建立在一些技术概念上之上，这在现实世界易腐败的银行和法庭里不曾存在。

****If you accept the bitcoin network as the ultimate arbiter of truth capable of validating transactions, their sequence in time, and the integrity of all signatures, then this new financial system can be created; one like the world has never seen before.

如果你把比特币网络当作能够验证交易的最终裁决者，它的时间序列和签名的信任，那么一种新的金融系统就可以被创建；一个完全全新的世界。

****It is so new and so unique that it is difficult for people to easily get their minds around. This is actually one of the real challenges of the Lightning Network; just how unique it actually is. No existing financial law comes even close to mapping to how the LN functions.

它是如此之新和独特以至于让人们接受它有一定的难度。这正是闪电网络的挑战，只是因为它太独特。现存的金融法律甚至没有和闪电网络的运作方式相对应的。

****I have previously written an article where I tried to explain how the Lightning Network operates without resorting to a lot of the deepest technical details. You can find that article here if you would like to learn more.

我以前写过一篇文章，我尝试去解释在不借助很多高深技术细节下闪电网络是如何运行的。如果你想了解更多，你可以找到这篇文章。

****https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-lightning-network-elidhdicacs

****To start with the positive, let me clarify some points about the LN:

先从积极的一面开始，让我先澄清关于闪电网络的几点：

****The Lightning Network is an ‘idea’ for how to safely exchange value off-chain. It is unfortunate that the Lightning Network uses this particular name. The reason they picked this name is that for the system to work it requires a ‘network’ to communicate on this second layer. However, it does not stipulate any one specific network. Anyone can implement a Lightning Network; not just one particular company. There can, and likely will be, numerous competing and co-existing Lightning Networks in the future.

闪电网络是一个关于安全离线交易的“主意”。不幸的是用了闪电网络这个特殊的名字。他们取这个名字的原因是对于系统来讲，在这个第二层上它需要一个“网络”去沟通。尽管如此，它没有规定任何特定的网络。任何人可以实现闪电网络，不单某一特定公司。将来或许会有很多存在竞争关系的共存的闪电网络。

Since the Lightning Network does, in fact, require a peer-to-peer layer-2 communications network, it leads many to jump to false conclusions about what a Lightning Network transaction ‘is’, or who holds custody of funds at any given time.

自从闪电网络后，事实上它需要一个点对点的第二层沟通网络，它容易导致很多人跳向关于闪电网络的错误结论，或者认为在任何时候它掌控了资金的保管。

Lightning Network transactions are bitcoin transactions. It is incredibly important to remember this and repeat it to yourself over and over again. The Lightning Network never holds custody of anyone’s funds. All funds are held in mult-sig funding transactions on the bitcoin network. All the LN does is facilitate exchanging signatures between parties; but only the bitcoin network itself holds or releases funds.

闪电网络的交易是比特币网络的交易。这点极其重要，需要经常反复提醒自己。闪电网络从来没有掌控任何人资金的保管。所有的资金被保管在比特币网络的多重签名的交易里。闪电网络所做的是加快各个部分之间签名的交换速度，只有比特币网络拥有和发行资金。

Lightning Network transactions are unconfirmed bitcoin transactions. It is essentially a mechanism, using hash time-locked smart contracts, to safely exchange zero-confirmation transactions and treat them as ‘good as confirmed’. The mechanics which make this possible are two fold. First,all LN unconfirmed transactions are based on an existing confirmed funding transaction. These funds are already confirmed on the bitcoin network, in a mult-sig address which the unconfirmed LN transactions are based upon. Second, using some very clever ‘smart contract’ features, the user can feel safe that these unconfirmed transactions are as good as ‘gold’ (or in this case, ‘as good as bitcoin’).

闪电网络的交易是“未确认”的比特币网络交易。它本质上是一种机制，使用哈希时间锁定的智能合约，来安全的交易零确认的交易，把它们当做已经“确认的交易”。这种机制的实现需要两方面。首先，闪电网络未确认的交易是建立在已经存在的“确认”的交易之上。这些资金已经被比特币网络确认过存在于多重签名的地址里，未确认的闪电网络交易必须在此之上。其次，使用一种非常聪明的“智能合约”特性，让用户觉得这些未确认的交易是真实的“金子”（在这种情况下，就是“比特币”）。

The technical details about how these unconfirmed transactions can be accepted safely are extremely complex but, on the face of it, appear fairly rock solid. Of course, no one is going to trust such a system overnight. It takes time for a community to build trust in a new financial layer and, without question, it will be a long time before people will be willing to commit a significant amount of value to something like the LN.

关于如何将未确认的交易安全地认同，这一技术细节实现是想当复杂的，初看起来，显得磐石之固。当然没有一个人会在一夜之间相信这样的一个系统。这需要时间，让社区对这样一个新的金融层建立信任。毫无疑问，让人们愿意提交大量资金的交易在闪电网络上，是需要花很长时间的。

****For these reasons I feel strongly that the LN is a ‘killer app’ for off-chain decentralized micro-transactions. If we would like to be able to execute, literally, billions of micro-transactions (value as low as a millionth of a penny if we wanted) essentially for free and instantaneously, then the LN solves this problem really well. It is truly an amazing invention and something to get excited about.

由于这些原因，我强烈感受到闪电网络是一个“杀手级应用”对于离线的去中心化小额交易。如果我们想要交易海量的小额交易（如果我们愿意低到百万分之一也可以）从本质上免费并且实时，闪电网络确实可以做的很好。它确实是一个令人赞叹和激动的发明。

****Unfortunately, the micro-transaction use case of the LN is the only scenario that has a fairly clear path to success. Every other use case of the LN which involves transacting more than just a tiny amount of value presents a number of practical problems which are not easily solved.

不幸的是，小额交易是闪电网络的唯一使用场景，它有清晰的实现路线。其他每一个闪电网络的场景，涉及到大额交易时，总是会存在一些实际的问题，而且并不容易解决。

****So, while I feel the micro-transaction use case for the Lightning Network is a slam dunk, it is also important to understand the problems with it and why no one should be expecting the LN to offload the bulk of payment transactions anytime soon IF EVER! Realize that true micro-transactions are already impractical on the bitcoin network, since the minimum fee is already much larger than the average micro-transaction would ever be. What this means, is that the only use case that we know the LN can solve well, doesn’t actually offload any transaction capacity from the bitcoin network; since the bitcoin network already cannot handle the micro-transaction use case.

因此，当我认为对于小额交易，闪电网络是稳操胜券，同样重要的是理解它的问题，为什么没有人期望闪电网络能够减少任何时间的大部分的支付交易负荷！认识到真正的小额交易在比特币网络是不现实的，因为最低交易费用已经比小额交易额高了。这意味着，我们知道的闪电网络可以很好解决的唯一场景问题，并不能实际地减少任何比特币网络的交易负荷；因为比特币网络现在已经不能够处理小额交易场景。

****So, what are the problems facing the Lightning Network?

所以，闪电网络面临的问题是什么？

****The Lightning Network does not yet exist. This is kind of a no-brainer. While the idea is brilliant, and easily summarized in a slide deck, actually building a functioning network is a massive undertaking. It does not exist today, and will not exist in a usable form for a very long time. There are numerous technical challenges to creating a fully decentralized layer-2 peer-to-peer network and it may end up being extremely difficult, if not impossible to achieve any time soon.

闪电网络现在还不存在。这是显而易见的。这个想法很不错，可以轻松的总结到幻灯片上，但是实际上要建立一个可用的网络是一项艰巨的任务。现在它还不存在，很长一段时间内也不会存在一个可用的形式。建立一个完全去中心化的二层P2P网络仍然面临大量技术挑战，或许它最终会因为太过复杂而中止，如果在任何时间都不很快的实现的话。

The Lighting Network scales transactions NOT users. While there is a frequent narrative that the Lightning Network is going to be a silver bullet to bitcoin's scaling problems, the reality is that it does absolutely nothing to scale users. The current bitcoin blocksize limit is so constrained that it can only support a few hundred thousand people using it on a semi-regular basis. At most, maybe a couple of million who only use it about twice a month. When you realize this, it drives home just how tiny the bitcoin community really is. Sure, there are some people who consider themselves bitcoin users, but never actually operate on-chain (Coinbase, Circle, customers), but these people gain none of the benefits of the bitcoin network. Users of Coinbase and Circle are subjected to AML/KYC and a high degree of government reporting and surveillance. If we truly want the bitcoin network to grow in a way that people can safely hold value on chain, then the blocksize has to grow substantially to do so. Even if the Lightning Network can handle billions and billions of transactions, it can only do so for the same few hundred thousand people who can hold value on the bitcoin network today. The Lightning Network requires on chain transactions to open and close a channel, and the bitcoin blocksize gates the maximum number of channels people can open. In the Lightning Nework slide deck they suggest that the average person will never need to open more than one channel every six months. Further points in this article will discuss why this isn't a reasonable proposition.

闪电网络提高的交易规模并不是用户的。有一个常说的言论，闪电网络将会是比特币网络扩容的银弹，事实是它丝毫没有有助于用户规模。当前的比特币区块的限制，限制了它只能支持几十万用户半正常地基本使用。最多，或许能支持几百万人每月使用两次。当你意识到这点后，就会很明白地认识到比特币社区真正是多小了。当然，有些人会认为他们是比特币用户，但是却从来不在链上交易（Coinbase, Circle用户），这些人没有获得比特币网络的任何好处。Coinbase和Circle的用户会遭受AML/KYC（反洗钱／了解你的客户），也会遭受一定程度的政府报告和监控。如果我们真的希望比特币网络会成长为一种人们可以安全的保存资产的网络，块的大小必须得增长到想当规模。即使闪电网络可以处理数以十亿的交易，它也只能为同样的数十万的已经在比特币网络上保存资产的人服务。闪电网络需要控制代理的开关的交易，比特币的块大小控制最大的可以打开的代理数。在闪电网络的幻灯片上，他们建议一般人绝不会打开超过一个的渠道在每六个月。文章的后续会接着讨论为什么这不是一个合理的建议。

If the Lightning Network existed, people wouldn’t trust it right away. Trust is earned, not granted. And, let’s be frank, Blockstream, the main company who has committed engineering resources to actually create the first Lightning Network, has not been doing a very good job of engaging with the community in a positive way. A Lightning Network implemented by a company other than Blockstream would probably have a better chance at this point. Blockstream has created a public-relations nightmare for themselves by how they have engaged with the existing bitcoin community over the past year. That is a lot of bad blood, not easily erased. How many people are going to flock to a blockstream sponsored Lightning Network day one? Probably not that many. How much value will people be willing to commit to the Lightning Network?; not that much. In fact, I predict that it will take years before people build up a level of trust in a Lightning Network before they would be willing to commit a substantial amount of value to the network; as has been true for every other cryptocurrency to date, including bitcoin itself. You can tell people that LN transactions ‘are’ bitcoin transactions all you want, but until people have seen the network safely operating for a very long period of time, don’t expect they will be willing to commit more than ‘change-tip’ amounts of value to the system.

如果闪电网络已经存在，人们也不会立刻信任它。信任是争取的，而不是赋予的。坦白的讲，Blaockstream，为开发闪电网络提供开发资源的主要公司，在积极参与社区的工作这方面做的并不好。闪电网络如果是由Blockstream以外的其他公司开发或许会有更好的机会在这方面。Blockstream在过去的几年里，在比特币社区沟通方面创造了自己的公关噩梦。这里有很多不和和仇恨，很难完全消除。到底会有多少人会聚集在Blockstream周围支持闪电网络的第一天呢？或许没有那么多。到底人们会愿意在闪电网络上进行多大额度的交易呢？不会那么多。我预测需要几年时间，人们才能对闪电网络建立一定程度的信任，在那之后才会愿意在闪电网络上进行大额交易；到目前为止这适合其他所有的加密货币，包括比特币自己。你可以告诉人们闪电网络“是”大家想要的比特币交易，但是只有到人们看到这个网络安全运行了很长一段时间后，不要期望人们会愿意在这个系统上做除了“小费或者找零钱”金额的交易。

If the Lightning Network existed, no wallets or payment providers would support it for a while. It took years before you could actually ‘spend’ your bitcoins online. I remember when we used to get excited every time some tiny vendor would accept bitcoin as payment. A bunch of us bitcoin enthusiasts even helped some young people with their tiny business, because they were one of the few places that would accept bitcoin payment directly. (http://www.beesbros.com/) It takes years to develop the software infrastructure to integrate a new payment system; and have no doubt, the LN is definitely something new. Even once launched, it will take a very long time until every bitcoin wallet can send and receive LN facilitated payments seamlessly and every single payment processor (BitPay, Circle, Coinbase, exchanges, and other custom e-commerce sites) support it as well. So, just because someone from Blockstream might claim they will have a ‘working version’ of LN in some six months or so, that doesn't’ mean much. Because it will take years for people to gain trust in the network and for it to be fully integrated into the ecosystem.

如果闪电网络存在了，不会有钱包或者支付工具提供商会在短时间内支持它。它需要几年时间人们才能在上面花费。我记得每次一些很小的供应商愿意接受比特币支付时，我们都为之兴奋。一些像我们这样的比特币粉丝甚至会帮助一些年轻人和他们的小生意，因为他们是为数不多的原意直接接收比特币支付的人之一。(http://www.beesbros.com/)建立这些软件基础设施集成新的支付方式是需要几年的；毫无疑问，闪电网络绝对是“新”的。即使它启动起来，至到每个比特币钱包能无缝地发送和接受闪电网络的快捷支付和每一个支付处理商（BitPay, Circle, Coinbase, exchanges和其他的自定义电子商务网站）支持它，仍然需要很长时间。因此，只是因为来自Blockstream的某个人宣称他们会有一个可用版本的闪电网络在未来大约六个月内，那也并不意外着什么。因为人们信任这个网络和这个网络集成到现有的生态中，仍需要花费很多年。

The Lightning Network has problems with exchanging significant amounts of value. For the Lightning Network to function, it requires that users and businesses lock up as much bitcoin as they would ever expect to transact over a given period of time. For the micro-transaction use case, this isn’t a big deal. Locking up $5 or $10 worth of value is obviously not a problem. However, if you wanted to ‘only open one channel every six months’, as the Lightning Network slide deck suggests is a ‘reasonable use case’, things begin to fall apart. For someone to only open one Lightning Network channel every six months, would mean that channel would have to lock up the maximum amount of value the user would ever hold over that period of time. First of all, this would require a level of trust in the network which I have already noted will take a long time to achieve. Second, it doesn’t seem practical that in a world where people get their paychecks roughly, on average, every two weeks, that they would be ready, willing, or able to lock up all of the funds they might want to use for a six month period. You essentially have to think of the Lightning Network as a pre-paid debit card. You have to fund it up front, you have to guess how much you are going to need, and whenever you run out, you are going to have to top it off again. There is no scenario where it seems practical that people will only want to open a single channel once every six months.

闪电网络在大额交易方面有很多问题。因为闪电网络的工作方式，它需要用户和商家锁定你在给定的一段时间内想要交易的比特币同样多的币。对于小额交易来讲，这确实没有问题。锁定5到10美金显然不是什么问题。但是如果你想要在每六个月内只打开一个交易渠道，如闪电网络幻灯片里建议的合理的用户场景，事情开始崩溃。因为如果某人想要每六个月打开闪电网络的渠道一次，那将意味着这个渠道必须锁定这个用户在这段时间内会掌握的最大金额。首先，这需要一定程度信任，前面我们已经讲过这需要很长时间才能实现。其次，人们需要这么久才能拿到他们的工资，这看起来不太现实，一般来讲，每两个星期他们会比较容易接受，而不是锁定所有他们想要在六个月使用的钱。你本质上必须把闪电网络当做一种提前支付的借记卡。你必须提前充值，你必须猜测你打算需要多少钱，你什么时候能花完，你什么时候必须结束它。现在还没有这样一个场景，需要人们切实的想要每六个月打开一个渠道。

The Lightning Network payment channels cannot help but lead to a certain degree of centralization. No matter how hard the engineers creating the LN try to keep it fully decentralized the economic reality of payment channels will always force it towards centralization. For payment channels to work a substantial amount of value must be locked up in funding transactions. Even though it is technically possible for every Tom, Dick, and Harry, to tie up some of their own personal bitcoin in payment channels, in exchange for whatever fees they can collect, the reality is that individuals will never be able to provide the degree of liquidity for the LN to operate at scale. The only way payment channels can function at a large scale, allowing for significant amounts of value to flow, will be from major businesses and financial service providers to do so. These will be your ‘Circle’, ‘BitPay’, and ‘Coinbases’, of the world. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with this, the reality is that all of those businesses will be subject to heavy regulation by the State. You can repeat as many times as you want that “since no one on the LN technically has custody of anyone else’s funds” (and this is, in fact, technically quite true), the reality is that financial regulators simply won’t give a shit. The bottom line is if that if corporations are using the LN to transact significant amounts of value, they will be subjected to financial regulations. There is simply no way around this. If the proponents of the Lightning Network are claiming that ‘since no one actually holds custody of anyone else's funds’ and it is a ‘fully peer-to-peer decentralized network’ that regulators can’t touch it, they are living in a fantasy world disconnected from reality. These are the same people who champion how important it is that we keep the core bitcoin network fully decentralized due to threats by the State, but fail to realize that businesses operating on the LN will simply not be allowed to get away with this. Either financial regulators will apply old laws incorrectly to the LN, or they will simply write new ones. The bottom line is that if major corporations are transacting billions of dollars of value over the LN, they will be subjected to AML/KYC by the State. Period. Why or how Blockstream thinks they will magically be immune to this, is a mystery to me.

闪电网络的支付渠道不但没有帮助而且会导致一定程度的中心化。不论工程师在多么努力地构建闪电网络尝试使它完全地分散支付渠道的经济实体，它总会迫使闪电网络中心化。对于支付渠道的运行，它必须要锁定想当大量的交易金额。即使在技术上，对每一个Tom,Dick和Harry在支付网络冻结他们的个人比特币，来换取他们想要收取的费用，事实是在规模化上个人永远不会为闪电网络提供任何程度的资金流动性。唯一的能让闪电网络大范围的运作的方式，只有允许主要的商业和金融服务机构的大量资金的流入。他们会是你在这个世界的‘Circle’，‘BitPay’和‘Coinbases’。当然这没有什么错，但是事实是所有这些商业行为必须遭受严重的国家审查。你可以重复无数次“没有任何人在闪电网络上掌控其他人的资金保管”（事实是只是技术上是的），现实中那些金融监管机构才不会关心关心这个。根本上是，如果任何参与者使用闪电网络交易大额价值，他们都会遭受金融机构的监管。这个问题没有简单的办法解决。如果闪电网络的建议者声明“没有任何人掌控其他人的资金保管”和“完全的点对点的去中心化的网络”，那些监管者根本无法干涉，他们就是生活在一个与现实脱节的幻想世界里。也有相同的一些人捍卫比特币核心网络的完全去中心化是多么重要，以避免它被国家威胁，但是失败地意识到，在闪电网络上的经济行为也不能避免于此。无论金融监管者打算执行旧的法律来构陷，或者他们干脆出台新的法律。根本上说，如果大多数参与者在闪电网络上交易亿万级别的资金，他们肯定会遭受国家的AML/KYC（反洗钱和知道你的客户）。为什么以及怎样Blocckstream认为他们神奇地能避免于此，这对我来说是个谜。

Unbalanced Channels and Locking up Massive Amounts of Bitcoin in them makes LN economically challenging. The Lightning Network is built using bi-directional payment channels. Each channel is based on a pre-existing confirmed funding transaction on the bitcoin blockchain. Once a user opens a channel, they can only transact as much value as what was placed into the funding channel to begin with. So, for example, if someone opens a payment channel for $100, then the most money they can send is $100. If they want to send $101, they simply cannot. The channel is full, and they must close it and create a new one, or do an on-chain transaction for the $101 amount; which of course they can’t easily do because their bitcoin is already tied up in their LN channel. If the user opens a payment channel with $100 they can send up to $100 of value but they cannot receive a penny! The second party must also commit funds if the user wishes to be able to receive payments. So now, if the user wants to be able to both send, and receive, as much as $100 worth of value, the other party must be willing to commit $100 worth of value themselves. Now, once the primary user has sent say $100, then he can now, theoretically, receive as much as $200 from the other party. The ‘channel’ simply allows them to move the current balance between the two of them; but within the limits of the original funding transaction. However, for the entire network to operate, this gets worse. There is this giant spider web of interconnected payment channels which will constantly be unbalanced. Now, if you want to send value from any person to any other on the network, you must find a path through a number of unbalanced channels. Unless those channels have wildly over-committed a huge amount of value, then paths will be difficult to find (requiring channels to be closed and re-opened to make the payments work, or resort to making it on chain). This creates a scenario where to transact significant amounts of value on the LN people will have to over-commit massive sums of bitcoin so these channels can remain open and have sufficient liquidity. We have to ask, is it a ‘good thing’ to have to have massive quantities of bitcoin ‘locked up’ in payment channels simply so they can provide liquidity to users? This seems economically unsound and impractical on a large scale.

不平衡的支付渠道和锁定大量比特币使闪电网络在经济上面临挑战。闪电网络是建立在双向的支付渠道。每一个支付渠道是建立在比特币网络之前已经存在的确认的交易之上的。一旦有用户打开支付渠道，他们只能交易最多他们在新建支付渠道时放入的金额。因此，举例来说，如果某人打开一个100美元的支付渠道，那他只能最多发送100美元。如果他们想要发送101美元，他不能简单做到。渠道已经满了，他们必须关闭它然后新建一个新的，或者直接进行101美元的链上交易；这也不容易实现，因为他们的比特币已经冻结到闪电网络里了。如果用户打开了100美元的支付渠道，他们只能发送100美元但是他们不能接受一分钱！如果用户希望能接受资金，另外一方同样必须提交金额。因此现在，如果用户想要发送和接受100美元，另外一方必须愿意提交100美元。现在，主用户可以发送100美元，那么理论上讲它有可以接受200美元从其他人那里。渠道简单地允许他们可以交易他们两个之间的金额；但是是在最初的押金交易限制内。尽管如此，对于整个网络的运行，这会更糟糕。连接这些持续不平衡的支付渠道会是一个庞大的蜘蛛网络。现在，如果你要发送资金到任何人手里，你必须通过这不平衡的渠道建立通道。除非这些通道广泛地有高出提交金额的资金，否则这些通道很难找到（需要渠道关闭和重新打开使交易可行，或者借助链上交易）。这新建了一种场景，人们要在闪电网络交易大额资金，他们必须提交超过提交额度的资金，这样才能使交易渠道保持打开并有有效的资金流动性。我们必须得问，为了简单的提供资金流动性而必须使大量的比特币锁定在支付渠道里，这样真的是一件好事么？这在规模化经济上看起来不太可行和不切实际。

Locking up funds in channels means they are subject to market volatility. We all want to live in a world where bitcoin is the main dominant currency of the land and, due to its deflationary nature, is always on average worth more than what we started with. If this were the reality we live in, then having bitcoin locked up in payment channels for extended periods of time would be no problem at all. Why not? You would both collect fees and watch the value of your bitcoin grow relative to the State sponsored fiat currency of your choice. Unfortunately, that isn’t the world we live in, and it may never be the case. The reality is that even though bitcoin isn’t as volatile today as it has been in the past, it is still pretty damned volatile. Imagine if billions of dollars worth of bitcoin are locked up in payment channels and, all of the sudden, bitcoin has a huge market correction. Can you hear thousands of Lightning Network payment channels snapping shut!? Market forces will preclude people from being willing or able to commit significant amounts of value to open payment channels, making them subject to more volatility risk than they are willing to absorb. When the market moves significantly, it could create instability in payment channels, as massive numbers of them all try to close at once, which will in turn flood the bitcoin network creating a massive backlog which could overwhelm the network; causing closing transactions to fail to confirm.

在闪电网络里锁定资金意味着他们必须承受市场的波动。我们都想生活在一个比特币是主要支付手段的世界里，因为比特币通货紧缩的天然属性，它总是在平均水平上比开始时更有价值。如果这是我们生活的真实世界，那么将比特币锁定在支付渠道里很长一段时间或许根本没有问题。为什么不呢？你既可以收集费用，又可以看着你的比特币相对你选择的国家法定货币升值。不幸的是，这不是我们生活的世界，世界或许永远都不会这样。事实是，即使比特币现在没有以前那么不稳定了，它始终有糟糕的不稳定性。想象一下，数十亿的比特币锁定在支付渠道里，突然间，比特币市场有巨大的市场调整。你能看到数以千计的支付渠道同时瞬间关闭！？市场迫使人们避免去提交大量的金额在支付渠道里，这将会使他们承受超出他们愿意承受的更大的不稳定风险。当市场波动剧烈时，它会造成新建闪电网络不稳定，大量的人会尝试立刻关闭闪电网络，反之海量的交易渠道新建请求的积压也会冲击比特币网络，甚至压垮网络；导致关闭交易确认的失败。

**Users of the Lightning Network effectively have a 'hot-wallet'. **Currently the best safe practices for bitcoin users it to keep their day-to-day spending money in a 'hot-wallet' (one actively connected to the Internet and hosted on a computer or smart-phone) and the bulk of their remaining money safe in 'cold-storage' or otherwise offline. The user can bring funds safely into their hot-wallet by using hardware wallets like the 'Trezor'. However, since the entire LN operates off of funds locked into payment channels, and those funds have to be large enough to sustain economic activity for the duration the channel is open, and if you intend to be a participant on the network, then the software must behave as a 'hot-wallet' capable of signing transactions as they are passed around the network. This presents a risk most bitcoin users have been educated to avoid. The Lightning Network operates by passing around massive numbers of signed transactions between participants. For it to function, all of those participants must be running a live piece of software always connected to the Internet and always capable of signing transactions. Should a user's machine become infected with a virus or otherwise taken over, in theory an attacker could steal funds. Obviously this is a risk an individual user can manage and, for the micro-transaction use case where the hot-wallet only contains a small amount of value, probably acceptable. But, can you imagine keeping a hot-wallet holding the value for all of your transactions for a six month period? That is a remarkably attractive target for the hacker community.

在闪电网络上的用户实际上拥有一个“热钱包”。现在比特币用户的最佳安全实践是，保持他们的日常支付的钱在“热钱包”（可以方便连接到网络的托管在电脑或者手机上），而将他们大量剩余的钱安全保存在‘冷钱包’或者离线。用户可以安全的将资金转移到他们的热钱包通过使用一些硬件钱包 'Trezor'。尽管如此，因为闪电网络是资金锁定在支付渠道里，并且这些资金必须足够多来维持渠道打开时的经济活动，如果你要加入这个网络，那这个软件必须得像‘热钱包’那样能够签名来使交易能够流通在网络。这将为比特币用户带来风险，而他们已经被教育去避免这种风险。闪电网络的运行，需要在参与者之间传送大量的签名交易。为了使它工作，所有的参与者必须运行一个软件使它总是连接到网络，可以签名交易。假如用户的机器被病毒感染或者被他人接管，理论上讲攻击者是可以盗走资金的。显然对于个人用户来讲他们需要控制这个风险，对于小额交易的场景热钱包只保留少量资金，这或许可以接受。但是你可以想象保留六个月所有交易的资金在热钱包里么？这将会是非常吸引黑客攻击的目标。

So, in conclusion, while the LN is a brilliant idea, and shows tremendous promise for the micro-transaction use case, it has a lot of challenges before it could ever offload a significant percentage of day-to-day transactions from the bitcoin network. More importantly, the Lightning Network does nothing to scale users; so even if it increases transaction capacity, it can only do so for the same few hundred thousand tech geeks that use the network today.

因此，总的来说，闪电网络是个不错的主意，对于小额支付场景它有巨大的前景，但是在可能减少比特币网络相当比例的日常交易负荷之前，它仍然面临很多挑战。更重要的是，闪电网络并不能被用户规模化使用；即使它能够增加交易能力，现在它只能被少数几千个技术极客去使用。

The only layer-2 system which might possibly scale more users are either alt-coins and/or side-chains. Meaning, you simply move value over to a whole different network entirely.

唯一能实现更多用户规模化使用的二层网络，是二代币或者侧链。这意味着，你简单的完全将价值转移到不同的网络。