Critics spark identity crisis debate around the Lightning Network

A widely circulated online survey has reignited the discussion surrounding Lightning Network (LN), a “Layer 2” scaling solution for Bitcoin that enables faster transactions. LN was rejected by more than 80% of participants as not real Bitcoin.

The gap shows a growing disconnect with LN’s inertia, technical issues, and concerns about its long-term role in the BTC ecosystem.

Over the course of the weekend, the poll, which asked thousands of X users if Lightning was succeeding as a Bitcoin alternative, generated intense discussion on the site. Advocates like Alex Gladstein and Matt Corallo defended LN against detractors like Paul Sztorc.

Breadman, the author of the poll, referred to Bitcoin inside the LN as “a separate token on a separate network,” despite Lightning BTC’s lack of a separate market capitalization from Bitcoin. 

Debate on LN’s actual purpose breaks out 

Is Lightning real bitcoin?

— Breadman (@BTCBreadMan) November 8, 2025

In response to the poll’s findings, Paul Sztorc, CEO of LayerTwo Labs, stated that it is very clear that the LN is not a genuine BTC. He further noted several of LN’s challenges, such as the requirement that nodes maintain their internet connection or the reliance of users on large liquidity suppliers.

Paul Sztorc claimed that although Lightning may appear spectacular at first, it becomes evident after six years that the system does not function as planned. Under Sztorc’s thread on X, some users claimed to have been using LN, and the network has been working efficiently. 

“I have been part of a global grant program this week that is sending Bitcoin over Lightning to projects in more than 20 countries…the recipients of which are in turn redistributing sats locally to community members, over Lightning, followed by which these sats are then being spent, over Lightning, at local merchants. I’m not sure which alternate reality you inhabit.”

–Scott Wolfie, Global Coordinator at FBCE Global.

However, Sztorc further argued that the users are being tricked by at least 95% of them (probably 99%). He claimed that LN users are victims of fraud and don’t understand what “custodial” means, causing them to repeat misinformation unintentionally.

Gladstein, a Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation, disagreed, calling Sztorc’s remarks “truly amazing” and restating his conviction that LN makes it possible to utilize Bitcoin as digital currency.

Matt Corallo, an analyst, also disagreed with Sztorc, citing LN’s high transaction volume for small payments and projecting that “well into double-digit percent of BTC transactions are now Lightning.”

Additionally, Corallo named deniers of Lightning’s success “disconnected from reality.”

LN struggles as growth stalls further

According to Protos, LN is the largest and longest-running effort to reduce the cost of Bitcoin (BTC) transaction fees.

Memepool Space reveals that Lightning transaction fees frequently cost minuscule fractions of 0.10. The small fraction of transaction fees differs from the costly on-chain transaction fees for Bitcoin (BTC), which could cost hundreds of basis points for small, daily transactions. 

Protos claimed that the network was marketed as the least expensive method of sending and receiving Bitcoin while retaining complete self-custody for many years. However, it has stagnated over the past three years, despite experiencing rapid expansion from 2019 to 2022.

Factually, Lightning’s network health metrics have been stagnant for years.

According to Protos, the publicly visible network’s total BTC capacity is approximately 4,800 BTC, which has remained unchanged since September 2022. Since March 2022, the overall number of Lightning nodes has also remained constant. 

Additionally, since March 2022, the number of payment channels on the LN has decreased from over 80,000 to more than 45,000.

According to Protos, BTC-pegged assets, such as Coinbase’s cbBTC and other wrapped products like spot ETFs, dwarf LN transactions. Protos claimed that these options require more centralized control and demand greater trust in intermediaries.

Udi Wertheimer, a long-time Bitcoin advocate and customer support intern at Taproot Wizards, cited the success of programs like Moonshot, Base, and FOMO. 

He pointed out that these programs quickly drew millions of users and produced more Bitcoin-pegged transactions than on-chain activity.

Join Bybit now and claim a $50 bonus in minutes