Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin => Development & Technical Discussion => Topic started by: Anon136 on July 10, 2018, 05:54:11 PM



Title: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 10, 2018, 05:54:11 PM
A thread for discussion of all things Lightning Network.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 10, 2018, 05:57:43 PM
I made this because I couldn't find anything like it already in existence. If a thread like this already exists and I just missed it feel free to close this down mods but point me in the right direction too please. I found this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834043 but it's more of someone asking a (very vague) question about it not a general discussion thread. Anyway, I'll kick it off with a question.

There seems to be a chicken and egg problem with lightning. When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?

Also writing that previous sentence made me wonder, for that matter, what is the correct terminology for these things? If we are just going to call them bitcoins like there is no distinction between the bitcoins on the main net and these frequently renegotiated contractual obligations on the lightning network? Is that reasonable? If not are they lightning tokens? They aren't really tokens the way ERC20 tokens are tokens, are they?



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 10, 2018, 06:39:54 PM
If not are they lightning tokens? They aren't really tokens the way ERC20 tokens are tokens, are they?

They are bitcoins, many people don't understand that and try to prove that Bitcoin with LN is not a real Bitcoin because it doesn't use normal coins.

Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.0;topicseen) is another good discussion on whether or not Lightning Network is centralized.

There seems to be a chicken and egg problem with lightning. When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?

I don't really get "the problem" you mentioned. That's how I think it worked: 1. Someone created a node and decided to open a channel with that node 2. Bitcoins were sent to a multi-signature address which private keys are in control of both parties. 3. Someone else opened the channel to the same node and it was possible to start sending transactions across decentralized LN network.

There are no Lightning Network tokens. Each party is transacting with each other without broadcasting anything to the Bitcoin network. Everything is settled down once someone decides to close the channel. The biggest issue right now is that channel limits how much you can spend. Split payments are a planned feature.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 10, 2018, 07:00:40 PM
They are bitcoins, many people don't understand that and try to prove that Bitcoin with LN is not a real Bitcoin because it doesn't use normal coins.
...
There are no Lightning Network tokens. Each party is transacting with each other without broadcasting anything to the Bitcoin network. Everything is settled down once someone decides to close the channel. The biggest issue right now is that channel limits how much you can spend. Split payments are a planned feature.

I think though there is a reasonable case to be made that lightning network obligations are not bitcoin because one can not send those obligations to a bitcoin address. That which can be sent to a bitcoin address is not an unreasonable definition for the world bitcoin bitcoin, I think.

I suppose a good analogy is checkbook money. Technically not the same thing as cash or base money but people chose not to differentiate. They just call the checkbook money they have on balance "dollars" even though they obviously are not literally dollars.


I don't really get "the problem" you mentioned. That's how I think it worked: 1. Someone created a node and decided to open a channel with that node 2. Bitcoins were sent to a multi-signature address which private keys are in control of both parties. 3. Someone else opened the channel to the same node and it was possible to start sending transactions across decentralized LN network.

Ah yea I get it. It's because the entity that I am opening my channel with has the opposite balance with respect to me that I have with respect to him. We don't both have positive balances to each other. Haha. Dumb.

The android wallet that I'm using doesn't seem to have the functionality to open a channel where I am the creditor and my partner is the debtor. In other words a channel that I can receive funds on without having spent down first. But just because this wallet lacks that functionality doesn't mean the network lacks that functionality. Tell me if I got something wrong here.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: mindrust on July 10, 2018, 07:02:08 PM
I am sure the LN devs will eventually make everything dumb proof. They will basically find a way to do everything automatically which you need to do manually right now. I am not worried about that. Writing code for automation is probably ez.

I want to try setting up my LN node for fun and the guide I read tells me  (https://medium.com/coinmonks/guide-setup-a-lightning-network-node-on-windows-8475206807f)that I need to sync a btc full node first. I used to run my full node but I stopped doing it because I have dynamic IP and some of the IP's I get are bad IP's. Port forwarding doesn't work on those bad IP's (I can't upload data to my peers). Does it make a difference for running a LN node? If it does is it possible to connect to someone else's node to run my LN node?


Funded about 0.5 BTC to play with across a bunch of channels, pulled out 0.26 BTC after shutting everything down. Fucked around with Satoshi's place a bit, bought some stickers, but I believe most of the 0.24 BTC I didn't get back was blown on channel open/close fees, and possibly just "lost" due to bugs and shit.

I thought it wasn't possible to lose funds on LN. I know there might be bugs and shit, the stuff is still in beta but this is the first time actually I heard about somebody who managed to lose his funds. Even if its in beta, I thought It wasn't really possible to lose your coins. :/ I would have freaked out If I had lost 0.26btc for trying science lol.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 10, 2018, 07:31:06 PM
The android wallet that I'm using doesn't seem to have the functionality to open a channel where I am the creditor and my partner is the debtor. In other words a channel that I can receive funds on without having spent down first. But just because this wallet lacks that functionality doesn't mean the network lacks that functionality. Tell me if I got something wrong here.

Which android wallet are you using? I personally use Eclair but it doesn't support receiving coins over Lightning Network. I'm waiting for Android version of Zap wallet which seems to have this feature.

I thought it wasn't possible to lose funds on LN. I know there might be bugs and shit, the stuff is still in beta but this is the first time actually I heard about somebody who managed to lose his funds. Even if its in beta, I thought It wasn't really possible to lose your coins. :/ I would have freaked out If I had lost 0.26btc for trying science lol.

As you mentioned, Lightning Network is still in its early beta thus this kind of things might happen, but...

but I believe most of the 0.24 BTC I didn't get back was blown on channel open/close fees, and possibly just "lost" due to bugs and shit.

"Believe"? I doubt that he spent that much on stickers and satoshi's place, but he should have at least checked his transaction history and summed everything up before making such statement.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 10, 2018, 08:03:40 PM
Which android wallet are you using? I personally use Eclair but it doesn't support receiving coins over Lightning Network. I'm waiting for Android version of Zap wallet which seems to have this feature.

Bitcoin Lightning Wallet I believe it is called. I chose it over eclair because it has a "channel recovery tool".


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: ahmad21 on July 10, 2018, 08:15:47 PM
The android wallet that I'm using doesn't seem to have the functionality to open a channel where I am the creditor and my partner is the debtor. In other words a channel that I can receive funds on without having spent down first. But just because this wallet lacks that functionality doesn't mean the network lacks that functionality. Tell me if I got something wrong here.

Which android wallet are you using? I personally use Eclair but it doesn't support receiving coins over Lightning Network. I'm waiting for Android version of Zap wallet which seems to have this feature.

I thought it wasn't possible to lose funds on LN. I know there might be bugs and shit, the stuff is still in beta but this is the first time actually I heard about somebody who managed to lose his funds. Even if its in beta, I thought It wasn't really possible to lose your coins. :/ I would have freaked out If I had lost 0.26btc for trying science lol.

As you mentioned, Lightning Network is still in its early beta thus this kind of things might happen, but...

but I believe most of the 0.24 BTC I didn't get back was blown on channel open/close fees, and possibly just "lost" due to bugs and shit.

"Believe"? I doubt that he spent that much on stickers and satoshi's place, but he should have at least checked his transaction history and summed everything up before making such statement.
I believe there is no worthy android app still using the LN. Moreover I can hardly found of an worthy android app already with Segwit too. Mycelium the most popular android wallet still doesn't uses it Segwit. LN is still a whole long way to go.

Talking about its proof issues how do you feel it will affect the price of bitcoin? I mean I have rarely seen anyone talking about its impact over the price of bitcoin. Because obviously LN might make BTC ready for a immediate mass adoption at a cost of bit of centralization or maybe channelization would be more appropriate.
If not are they lightning tokens? They aren't really tokens the way ERC20 tokens are tokens, are they?

They are bitcoins, many people don't understand that and try to prove that Bitcoin with LN is not a real Bitcoin because it doesn't use normal coins.

Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.0;topicseen) is another good discussion on whether or not Lightning Network is centralized.

There seems to be a chicken and egg problem with lightning. When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?

I don't really get "the problem" you mentioned. That's how I think it worked: 1. Someone created a node and decided to open a channel with that node 2. Bitcoins were sent to a multi-signature address which private keys are in control of both parties. 3. Someone else opened the channel to the same node and it was possible to start sending transactions across decentralized LN network.

There are no Lightning Network tokens. Each party is transacting with each other without broadcasting anything to the Bitcoin network. Everything is settled down once someone decides to close the channel. The biggest issue right now is that channel limits how much you can spend. Split payments are a planned feature.
I have a pretty dumb question maybe. These channels which we obviously know will be on the bitcoin network. So won't any opened and later unclosed channels act as a mighty traffic over the blockchain? I mean if it happens that will again bring us to the same issue.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 10, 2018, 08:29:48 PM
I believe there is no worthy android app still using the LN.

You should try this app that I'm using if you haven't (Bitcoin Lightning Wallet). So far its worked like a dream. I would say that it isn't very polished and it requires user interaction that will ideally be done away with in future projects, but as long as you understand the basics of what is going on it works perfectly, nary a hiccup. If the first day of playing with it is representative of what I am going to continue to experience with it in the future, I would say that it is ready for me personally to start using in my day to day life.

I just paid a penny to see a meme and 4/10ths of a penny to leave a comment about the meme. Dumb I know but it's fun because you can see the humble beginnings of so much potential.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 10, 2018, 08:35:11 PM
I believe there is no worthy android app still using the LN. Moreover I can hardly found of an worthy android app already with Segwit too. Mycelium the most popular android wallet still doesn't uses it Segwit. LN is still a whole long way to go.

Talking about its proof issues how do you feel it will affect the price of bitcoin? I mean I have rarely seen anyone talking about its impact over the price of bitcoin. Because obviously LN might make BTC ready for a immediate mass adoption at a cost of bit of centralization or maybe channelization would be more appropriate.

If you are only interested in a Bitcoin SegWit Android wallet then check out Samourai. The developers are mainly focused on the security and privacy, it supports both nested and native SegWit. Mycelium became a bit shady some time ago.

I feel that LN will have a huge impact on the Bitcoin price in the future but we are still suffering from FUD and probably price manipulation. Also, we should not focus on the price, adoption is the most important factor here. Why do you think that LN is a bit centralized? Because of the people who connect to nodes which a huge amount of channels? Once LN network grows, it won't be a problem.

I have a pretty dumb question maybe. These channels which we obviously know will be on the bitcoin network. So won't any opened and later unclosed channels act as a mighty traffic over the blockchain? I mean if it happens that will again bring us to the same issue.

That's true, you still have to broadcast a transaction to open and close the channel, but it's paying off if you are often paying some bitcoins to a specific service (instant and cheap transactions). There is a service (https://lightningconductor.net/) which offers conversion from LN to on-chain funds and vice-versa without reopening a channel. As far as I remember, there is an idea which can help us to lower the size of the initial transactions - Schnorr signatures, new BIP related to this (https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki) has been recently released. You should also check out Channel Factories (https://news.bitcoin.com/a-new-second-layer-channel-factories/).

Opened channels do not have any impact on the Bitcoin Network beside coins being locked up in multisig addresses.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 10, 2018, 09:04:04 PM
So... each time the time locked contract is renegotiated (a transaction is executed) the duration of the time lock is reduced right? Does this put a functional limit on how many times a channel can be used? If so what sort of limits are we looking at?



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41507907#msg41507907

Oh holy Jesus that wall of text. Bro, your writings are too long. I highly doubt that this is because you are just so packed to the brim with deep insights and wisdom that it can't possibly be contained in anything less than an 8000 word essay. Learn how to say what you are trying to say concisely.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: European Central Bank on July 11, 2018, 09:37:38 AM
what interests me in particular is how Mr. Average will perceive lightning networks and how they'll be sold to him.

It's conceivable that users may choose to delegate absolutely everything to third parties. they might buy with fiat directly into already existing channels run by an exchange or coinbase equivalent and expect all channel management to handled by them as well.

even now with all the cool tools to hand, many, many people are too lazy and dumb to spend a few minutes learning how to take control for themselves and that's with something less complex than this.

i'll be the first to admit i don't understand a great deal about it but for now it still looks like a very cool experiment, not the savior of everything.  


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: ahmad21 on July 11, 2018, 01:49:49 PM
I believe there is no worthy android app still using the LN.

You should try this app that I'm using if you haven't (Bitcoin Lightning Wallet). So far its worked like a dream. I would say that it isn't very polished and it requires user interaction that will ideally be done away with in future projects, but as long as you understand the basics of what is going on it works perfectly, nary a hiccup. If the first day of playing with it is representative of what I am going to continue to experience with it in the future, I would say that it is ready for me personally to start using in my day to day life.

I just paid a penny to see a meme and 4/10ths of a penny to leave a comment about the meme. Dumb I know but it's fun because you can see the humble beginnings of so much potential.

Well I will surely try the app with a few bits but I will wait for LN to get out of the development stage completely and become free from any bugs and errors because I am really not into losing my money. Moreover, I am really sorry but I am never going to trust a new app with merely 1000 downloads so far with my funds. So will wait for app to grow a bit to organic users.
I believe there is no worthy android app still using the LN. Moreover I can hardly found of an worthy android app already with Segwit too. Mycelium the most popular android wallet still doesn't uses it Segwit. LN is still a whole long way to go.

Talking about its proof issues how do you feel it will affect the price of bitcoin? I mean I have rarely seen anyone talking about its impact over the price of bitcoin. Because obviously LN might make BTC ready for a immediate mass adoption at a cost of bit of centralization or maybe channelization would be more appropriate.

If you are only interested in a Bitcoin SegWit Android wallet then check out Samourai. The developers are mainly focused on the security and privacy, it supports both nested and native SegWit. Mycelium became a bit shady some time ago.

I feel that LN will have a huge impact on the Bitcoin price in the future but we are still suffering from FUD and probably price manipulation. Also, we should not focus on the price, adoption is the most important factor here. Why do you think that LN is a bit centralized? Because of the people who connect to nodes which a huge amount of channels? Once LN network grows, it won't be a problem.

I have found Samourai to be a pretty useful app for android but I think I will be much more happier if Electrum comes in with a better version of their android app. I mean it sucks when you compare it with the desktop version which is just too good. The mobile version suffers a whole lot of problems.

Moreover, yes I think you are right mass adoption can only be done if forget about price variation. But my problem here is that if the whale play goes on mass adoption will become difficult because people will always be afraid about what they are holding or spending.

Quote
I have a pretty dumb question maybe. These channels which we obviously know will be on the bitcoin network. So won't any opened and later unclosed channels act as a mighty traffic over the blockchain? I mean if it happens that will again bring us to the same issue.

That's true, you still have to broadcast a transaction to open and close the channel, but it's paying off if you are often paying some bitcoins to a specific service (instant and cheap transactions). There is a service (https://lightningconductor.net/) which offers conversion from LN to on-chain funds and vice-versa without reopening a channel. As far as I remember, there is an idea which can help us to lower the size of the initial transactions - Schnorr signatures, new BIP related to this (https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki) has been recently released. You should also check out Channel Factories (https://news.bitcoin.com/a-new-second-layer-channel-factories/).

Opened channels do not have any impact on the Bitcoin Network beside coins being locked up in multisig addresses.
Will surely have a deep look into these resources this question has been in my mind for quite some time now. I believed that opened channels could make the condition worse.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 11, 2018, 03:17:56 PM
It's conceivable that users may choose to delegate absolutely everything to third parties. they might buy with fiat directly into already existing channels run by an exchange or coinbase equivalent and expect all channel management to handled by them as well.

I think the only solution here is to have the LN be similarly easy to use as those centralized services. That way people don't need to necessarily understand all of the differences, they can just understand that people who know more than they do are telling them that this is the better way to do it and since both options are similarly simple to use they will take the word of the people who know more than they do.

It may not end up playing out that way. Bitcoin could become centralized like gold did in the past for exactly the reasons you and aununy are talking about. But if it does there will still always be cooler more underground projects to get interested in. Do you suppose the type of people who are using monero are the type of people who would hand over their private keys to a bank? I don't thinks so ;)



Well the topic is complex, but one simplified soundbite is that transaction fees will become too high on-chain for users to open HTLC payment channels on-chain, and thus they will be forced into fractional reserves which is what European Central Bank thinks they might do anyway, even if they could afford to open a channel on chain:

Once LN is chugging along nicely we will just increase the block size. The only reason that people like me were resistant to block size increases is that people were pretending like it was a solution that it wasn't and planning on using it as a crutch to avoid actually addressing the real problem. Once the resistance to bigger blocks put the fire under everyone's ass that they needed to actually develop a REAL solution, and they actually rolled out that solution, there is no reason at all why we can not go back and re explore the idea of increasing the block size. That was always the position of people on my side of the argument. It was never some fanatical opposition to bigger blocks on principle. It was just a statement to all of the people who thought we were going to solve the scaling problem by just increasing block size as big as was necessary, that they could piss off, which they did, over to btrash, and good riddance.

I think the way that you have to think about this problem is from the other direction. You have to think in terms of need and what is required to serve that need. So kinda like this: Lets say everyone on the planet wants to use LN. That's 7 billion people. I'm going to make a wild stab and say that they may need 3 on chain transactions per year each. I think that is a pretty generous assumption. 1 every 10 years could be enough. The average transaction is about 250 bytes but lets double that to 500 because transactions to open a payment channel are probably bigger I'm sure. Lets also assume that on chain scaling measures only decrease the total size of transactions by half though between now and this nebulous point in the future. Ok so that comes out to 100mb per block being required. So with those assumptions if the block size was significantly less than 100mb your claim would probably be true and if it was 100mb or higher it would probably be false. The specific values aren't important, you can plug in your own, just wanted to point out the different way of thinking about the problem.



Well I will surely try the app with a few bits but I will wait for LN to get out of the development stage completely and become free from any bugs and errors because I am really not into losing my money. Moreover, I am really sorry but I am never going to trust a new app with merely 1000 downloads so far with my funds. So will wait for app to grow a bit to organic users.

Sure, sure, I only put 20 dollars on there myself. If I lose it I've had more than 20 dollars worth of fun with it already.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: infofront on July 12, 2018, 01:58:45 AM
what interests me in particular is how Mr. Average will perceive lightning networks and how they'll be sold to him.

It's conceivable that users may choose to delegate absolutely everything to third parties. they might buy with fiat directly into already existing channels run by an exchange or coinbase equivalent and expect all channel management to handled by them as well.

even now with all the cool tools to hand, many, many people are too lazy and dumb to spend a few minutes learning how to take control for themselves and that's with something less complex than this.

i'll be the first to admit i don't understand a great deal about it but for now it still looks like a very cool experiment, not the savior of everything.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41507907#msg41507907

Oh holy Jesus that wall of text. Bro, your writings are too long. I highly doubt that this is because you are just so packed to the brim with deep insights and wisdom that it can't possibly be contained in anything less than an 8000 word essay. Learn how to say what you are trying to say concisely.

Well the topic is complex, but one simplified soundbite is that transaction fees will become too high on-chain for users to open HTLC payment channels on-chain, and thus they will be forced into fractional reserves which is what European Central Bank thinks they might do anyway, even if they could afford to open a channel on chain:

It's conceivable that users may choose to delegate absolutely everything to third parties. they might buy with fiat directly into already existing channels run by an exchange or coinbase equivalent and expect all channel management to handled by them as well.

I'll go so far as to say LN is virtually useless as an end-user protocol. It provides the technological base for the payment processors of the future. Some have compared it to the TCP/IP protocol. The analogy is:
Internet -> Bitcoin
TCP/IP -> Lightning Network
World Wide Web -> Layer 3

Anyway, the next generation of payment processors will be built atop LN, will absorb all risk associated with LN, and will provide users a foolproof layer 3 solution. And possibly fractional reserve banking and derivatives.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 12, 2018, 03:17:23 AM
What is your actual position anunymint? Are you a bcash troll? Just anti crypto currency? Pro fiat fractional reserve banking? Pro gold and silver bullion? I have a taste of some of the things you stand against but no idea what you sand for.



I'll go so far as to say LN is virtually useless as an end-user protocol. It provides the technological base for the payment processors of the future. Some have compared it to the TCP/IP protocol. The analogy is:
Internet -> Bitcoin
TCP/IP -> Lightning Network
World Wide Web -> Layer 3

Anyway, the next generation of payment processors will be built atop LN, will absorb all risk associated with LN, and will provide users a foolproof layer 3 solution. And possibly fractional reserve banking and derivatives.

Interesting perspective. +Merit


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: infofront on July 12, 2018, 04:13:25 AM
If I mentioned any of that in the WO thread, I'd probably get labeled a bcash shill  :D


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on July 12, 2018, 07:52:05 AM

I'll go so far as to say LN is virtually useless as an end-user protocol. It provides the technological base for the payment processors of the future. Some have compared it to the TCP/IP protocol. The analogy is:
Internet -> Bitcoin
TCP/IP -> Lightning Network
World Wide Web -> Layer 3

Anyway, the next generation of payment processors will be built atop LN, will absorb all risk associated with LN, and will provide users a foolproof layer 3 solution. And possibly fractional reserve banking and derivatives.

But the "fractional reserve banking" system, and/or derivatives will be isolated only in the "next generation" payment processors' layer correct? But not on the Lightning Network?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: infofront on July 12, 2018, 02:45:36 PM

I'll go so far as to say LN is virtually useless as an end-user protocol. It provides the technological base for the payment processors of the future. Some have compared it to the TCP/IP protocol. The analogy is:
Internet -> Bitcoin
TCP/IP -> Lightning Network
World Wide Web -> Layer 3

Anyway, the next generation of payment processors will be built atop LN, will absorb all risk associated with LN, and will provide users a foolproof layer 3 solution. And possibly fractional reserve banking and derivatives.

But the "fractional reserve banking" system, and/or derivatives will be isolated only in the "next generation" payment processors' layer correct? But not on the Lightning Network?

I'm pretty sure that's right.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 12, 2018, 04:36:11 PM
So I am working on not the absolute maximum security (hey natural calamities are a risk we all face yet we still go about doing our work anyway), but the maximum on-chain scalability so we avoid the deleterious effects of “Mt. Box” hubs especially for databases for everything we do on the Internet not just payments (aren’t we tired of being controlled by a few Internet behemoths!). Off-chain does not scale to the masses except in localized groupings (which is what non-fractional reserve layer 3 solutions require). So I am trying to solve the BIG ENCHILADA which is long-term even more important than Bitcoin. But not a Bitcoin Killer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1739268.msg36504599#msg36504599). The Knowledge Age is the ultimate Bitcoin Killer but that is some decades from now. In the interim Bitcoin will be dominant.

Can you give us at least a flavor of how you propose to achieve on chain scalability?

Well I hope you do solve "the big enchalada". While you work on that though the rest of us can be doing lightning payments that are super cheap super fast and don't really negatively impact the bitcoin that we already had in any way.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: ETFbitcoin on July 12, 2018, 07:54:09 PM
I've been wondering about security mechanism/protection when a party refuse to sign new/updated HLTC (either because bugged software or modified source-code), do the other party simply broadcast "Penalty"/"Punishment" transaction?

Can you give us at least a flavor of how you propose to achieve on chain scalability?

One of the important factors in scalability is that not everyone can validate every transaction. The reasons should be obvious no? So thus we can never get maximum scalability on-chain combined with maximum security. The best we can hope for on-chain scalability is acceptable mathematically quantified security along with maximum on-chain scalability of both transaction volume and participation.

Off-chain can scale volume of transactions while maintaining maximum security on-chain for settlement, but AFAICT it can’t scale maximum participation in those non-fractional reserve transactions (for the reasons already discussed up-thread such as the liquidity weighted routing issue and AFAIK that layer 3 can only be non-fractional for groupings of participants, not every public address on the block chain). Thus, off-chain only scales participation via fractional reserves and Internet behemoths. (Note off-chain HTLCs can be employed securely for participants of any wealth in local groupings for example to accelerate battles in decentralized MMORPG games)

As an analogy, off-chain HTLCs actually create regions clustered around liquidity and sufficient wealth of market makers. Off-chain liquid routing ends up as centralized exchanges decorated with some secure settlement protocols which most end-user participants probably won’t be able to avail of on-chain. Thus off-chain moves the masses entirely off-chain to fractional reserves and keeps only the exchanges on-chain. Well isn’t that what we already have with centralized exchanges, except that off-chain HTLCs also enables those exchanges to transact securely off-chain. But my expectation is that most end-users will not be participating with on-chain settlement security (i.e. with non-fractional reserves).

So what I want to do is raise the average level of security for the end-user participants because they will all be transacting on-chain at maximum scalability of volume and participation, but the security will not be as high as Bitcoin. Yet most end-users will not be able to transact on Bitcoin (even with LN) for the reasons already stated. So that is why the average security can be raised even while the maximum security is lower. Yet by lower, I do not mean the current shit security of proof-of-stake which is guaranteed to be controlled by a parasitic oligarchy. Yet please note that Bitcoin is also ostensibly being surreptitiously controlled by a parasitic oligarchy behind the curtain (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41777649#msg41777649), but that parasitism is masked (to some degree at least for those not stupid enough to be fooled into buying shitcoins or trading the dips) near-term by the gains in market cap due to onboarding onto the world’s future reserve currency that has maximum security.

If I give you much more flavor than that about the actual technological features I am exploring, then I will probably give away my idea prematurely. It will of course employ a open participation sharded design analogous to OmniLedger (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers), but there are some significant differences. And no traditional proof-of-work but every user's client does some work but not what you would normally think of as a proof-of-work (i.e. not computationally significant and not a “fungible might is right” paradigm, i.e. the work is not measured by computational difficulty). OmniLedger and most other sharded designs I’ve seen divide up security level by the number of shards. My design idea in theory maintains a constant security level regardless of the number of shards. Note please take this all as unsubstantiated story-telling conjecture until you actually see a whitepaper with some formal proofs of security.

So, very basically it's similar with Sharding, but used on on-chain/1st layer?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on July 13, 2018, 06:09:47 AM

I'll go so far as to say LN is virtually useless as an end-user protocol. It provides the technological base for the payment processors of the future. Some have compared it to the TCP/IP protocol. The analogy is:
Internet -> Bitcoin
TCP/IP -> Lightning Network
World Wide Web -> Layer 3

Anyway, the next generation of payment processors will be built atop LN, will absorb all risk associated with LN, and will provide users a foolproof layer 3 solution. And possibly fractional reserve banking and derivatives.

But the "fractional reserve banking" system, and/or derivatives will be isolated only in the "next generation" payment processors' layer correct? But not on the Lightning Network?

I'm pretty sure that's right.

Thanks, I can sleep better now.

I made a mistake in the merit I sent. I sent to much, it was supossed to be 1. Haha.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Traxo on July 13, 2018, 04:53:08 PM
Quote from: mtwerp_vandalized_this



I'll go so far as to say LN is virtually useless as an end-user protocol. It provides the technological base for the payment processors of the future. Some have compared it to the TCP/IP protocol. The analogy is:
Internet -> Bitcoin
TCP/IP -> Lightning Network
World Wide Web -> Layer 3

Anyway, the next generation of payment processors will be built atop LN, will absorb all risk associated with LN, and will provide users a foolproof layer 3 solution. And possibly fractional reserve banking and derivatives.

Agreed. That (thus necessarily fractional reserves for the users) is the only way it can scale without requiring block size increases. And ongoing block size increases are a form centralized failure mode as I already explained up-thread. Also because liquidity (aka liquid routing) issues can’t be resolved adequately without “Mt. Box” hubs and hubs can choose who they want to do provide liquidity to, so they could give preference to their users who have fractional reserves.

So Hashed Time Locked Contracts (HTLC) (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Hashed_Timelock_Contracts&oldid=63977) are a secure means of off-chain and cross-chain1 (not side-chains which are insecure (https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/46)!) transactions, but they do not scale to the masses. In payment channels (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Payment_channels&oldid=65341), they are for use by “Mt. Box” hubs as I had alluded to. Btw, the “Mt. Box” term originates from Rusty Russell one of the early proponents of LN.

Actually HTLCs can be done on the real Bitcoin (without the Core cruft added). Core’s OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Timelock&oldid=63970) (aka OP_CLTV) makes it possible to do them more elegantly yet this elegance will not be even beneficial in any way when only a small number of large hubs will be using HTLCs on the real Bitcoin. Craig Wright is (and the Trilema dudes are) actually correct in this case that all the Core cruft is unnecessary.

For example, although I wrote for my improvement for cross-chain transactions1 that it requires OP_CLTV—“This protocol can’t be achieved with nLockTime”—I realize I could actually make the protocol work without Core’s OP_CLTV. Simply have the bidders issue commitments on either chain. Even though this doesn’t lockup the UTXO for their bid, the asker’s ledger can still penalize them to the back-of-the-line when they fail to sign the payment for their accepted bid, by tracing the lineage of the UTXO on the bidder’s chain. It’s less elegant (with some increased risk in some nearly implausible pathological case) but still works. Another alternative in lieu of OP_CLTV would employ OP_MULTISIG as Spillman-style contracts do (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Contract&oldid=63826#Example_7:_Rapidly-adjusted_.28micro.29payments_to_a_pre-determined_party) in order to lockup the bidder’s UTXO and require the asker to be the other signer wherein the asker pre-signs T2 the nLockTime refund and the alternative payment T3 transaction (used if the bid is accepted) before the bidder issues the T1 transaction.

Many Core shills claim that Spillman-style payment channels (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Payment_channels&oldid=65341#Spillman-style_payment_channels) which employ nLockTime instead of OP_CLTV are vulnerable to malleability attacks (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0065.mediawiki#non-interactive-time-locked-refunds) wherein the counterparty could hold the channel’s funds hostage. But these malleability attacks are simply a bug which can be fixed that doesn’t require any change to Satohshi’s real Bitcoin protocol. By enforcing the correct format for signatures, then the counterparty needs to only sign two variants (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Transaction_malleability&oldid=64304#Signature_Malleability) of each transaction to remove all remaining malleability.

So we will get a lot of hype about LN on Core but this is just a ploy by the powers-that-be to take real Bitcoin from bunny rabbits. And yes we will end up with LN on “Mt. Box” hubs and it will run fine on the real Bitcoin which ends up the winner at the end. Core will provide it’s intermediary role and to fool the n00bs in the process.

1 I improved and fixed TierNolan's flawed atomic decentralized exchange protocol utilizing HTLCs in the Viable Trustless Cross-chain DEX Protocol subsection of the Secure, DEX (Decentralized Exchange) section of Part 1 of my most recent blog (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers).


But the "fractional reserve banking" system, and/or derivatives will be isolated only in the "next generation" payment processors' layer correct? But not on the Lightning Network?

Correct, but that means the actual users will eventually all be using fractional reserves.

So now do you understand why Goldman Sachs et al were investors in Blockstream. Not only do they get to propel us forward towards a 666 fractional reserve future, but they also take our Bitcoins from us by fooling us into hodling a Core protocol altcoin (all altcoins are fractional reserves of the reserve currency real Bitcoin).

What is your actual position anunymint? Are you a bcash troll? Just anti crypto currency? Pro fiat fractional reserve banking? Pro gold and silver bullion? I have a taste of some of the things you stand against but no idea what you sand for.
 


I now hate gold and silver (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg42147879#msg42147879).

Didn’t you read me criticizing Bcash (BCH) so many times recently? Hell no I am not a shill for Bcash. Bcash is (like Core also) another way of getting n00bs to buy shitcoins with their real Bitcoin.

Fractional reserve banking (and democracy with redistribution of wealth and socialism) was necessary in the fixed capital investment Agricultural and Industrial ages, but I believe we are leaving that now going into a new epoch Knowledge Age. See the following links for digging into my hypothesis on that:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4614012.msg41962468#msg41962468
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4614012.msg41788167#msg41788167

So I believe the real Satoshi protocol Bitcoin is going to be the new world reserve currency and it will be king of the old world, fixed capital investment, fungible labor, Industrial age economy. The real Bitcoin will dominate all the shitcoins, including Core and Bcash which are just fractional reserves on the real Bitcoin.

But I also believe that old world economy is fading away. That is why the powers-that-be must further consolidate it with (surreptitious control over) Bitcoin and ameliorate the nation-state central banks (which they also significantly surreptitiously influence from behind the curtain).

So I believe the future is a Knowledge Age and that is why I am working on trying to remove the “Past Majority” nothing-at-stake attacks on proof-of-stake and remove the ability for even 50+% attacks to profit on proof-of-stake. Because I think we need decentralized consensus for more than just money. We need to for example replace all the centralized databases on the Internet with decentralized ones so that the Knowledge Age is not controlled by a few fat cats who destroy it.

So I am working on not the absolute maximum security (hey natural calamities are a risk we all face yet we still go about doing our work anyway), but the maximum on-chain scalability so we avoid the deleterious effects of “Mt. Box” hubs especially for databases for everything we do on the Internet not just payments (aren’t we tired of being controlled by a few Internet behemoths!). Off-chain does not scale (along with not having fractional reserves) to the masses except in localized groupings (which is what non-fractional reserve layer 3 solutions require). And scaling with fractional reserves has the drawbacks/limitations that we see now with the dominance of the Internet behemoths. So I am trying to solve the BIG ENCHILADA which is long-term even more important than Bitcoin. But not a Bitcoin Killer. The Knowledge Age is the ultimate Bitcoin Killer but that is some decades from now. In the interim Bitcoin will be dominant.

Yet if we succeed on this goal, then what we are creating will also grow hopefully to billions of users with a decade or two. Anyway, that is the shitcoin I am contributing to. I am also working on a new programming language Zer0 which I think can be the next mainstream programming language:

Quote from: anunymint
Which is why C++ is the most clusterfucked programming language (http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/) (c.f. also (https://github.com/keean/zenscript/issues/35#issuecomment-359212604), also (https://github.com/keean/zenscript/issues/31#issuecomment-390366757) and also (https://github.com/keean/zenscript/issues/35#issuecomment-397781638)) on earth.




Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Traxo on July 13, 2018, 05:06:25 PM
Quote from: mtwerp_vandalized_this


While you work on that though the rest of us can be doing lightning payments that are super cheap super fast and don't really negatively impact the bitcoin that we already had in any way.

Quote from: Anon136
Also, to anyone who is feeling down in the dumps about the current price action, I recommend downloading the Bitcoin Lightning Network app on your android phone and playing with it. Doing this has made me very excited about the future of bitcoin and reaffirmed my long term bull expectation. Paying a penny for something and having it be super easy and super fast and unbelievably cheap transaction fee is just fun to do.



I presume you know realize STEEM has had “free” instant transactions on-chain since 2016, not limited to just payment transactions but all sorts of non-monetary database updates. I have been posting blog and comment edits instantly since 2016 on STEEM. It really works. Of course it is centralized behind the curtain but one can argue so is Bitcoin. I am really not super excited about being able to send an instant payment off-chain (and no other kinds of non-monetary database update transactions!) on a system that I expect to become centralized, not permissionless, and with users holding bags of fractional reserves. I want a design that I know can scale and protect humanity from the Internet behemoths which have too much totalitarian power. I think LN is more of the same totalitarianism.

Note however that letting Wallstreet and the Silicon Valley vulture capitalists bring their zombies minions into off-chain hubs is probably good for the growth of crypto. Does not meet my ideals, but it can coexist for example with other alternatives that I and others are working on.


Can you give us at least a flavor of how you propose to achieve on chain scalability?

One of the important factors in scalability is that not everyone can validate every transaction. The reasons why that is an important factor should be obvious no?

Thus we can never get maximum scalability on-chain combined with maximum security. The best we can hope for on-chain scalability is acceptable mathematically quantified security along with maximum on-chain scalability of both transaction volume and participation.

Off-chain can scale volume of transactions while maintaining maximum security on-chain for settlement, but AFAICT it can’t scale maximum participation in those non-fractional reserve transactions (for the reasons already discussed up-thread such as the liquidity weighted routing issue and AFAIK that layer 3 can only be non-fractional for groupings of participants, not every public address on the block chain). Thus, off-chain only scales participation via fractional reserves and Internet behemoths. (Note off-chain HTLCs can be employed securely for participants of any wealth in local groupings for example to accelerate battles in decentralized MMORPG games)

As an analogy, off-chain HTLCs actually create regions clustered around liquidity and sufficient wealth of market makers. Off-chain liquid routing ends up as centralized exchanges decorated with some secure settlement protocols which most end-user participants probably won’t be able to avail of on-chain. Thus off-chain moves the masses entirely off-chain to fractional reserves and keeps only the exchanges on-chain. Well isn’t that what we already have with centralized exchanges, except that off-chain HTLCs also enables those exchanges to transact securely off-chain. But my expectation is that most end-users will not be participating with on-chain settlement security (i.e. with non-fractional reserves).

So what I want to do is raise the average level of security for the end-user participants because they will all be transacting on-chain at maximum scalability of volume and participation, but the security will not be as high as Bitcoin. Yet most end-users will not be able to transact on Bitcoin (even with LN) for the reasons already stated. So that is why the average security can be raised even while the maximum security is lower. Yet by lower, I do not mean the current shit security of proof-of-stake which is guaranteed to be controlled by a parasitic oligarchy. Yet please note that Bitcoin is also ostensibly being surreptitiously controlled by a parasitic oligarchy behind the curtain (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41777649#msg41777649), but that parasitism is masked (to some degree at least for those not stupid enough to be fooled into buying shitcoins or trading the dips) near-term by the gains in market cap due to onboarding onto the world’s future reserve currency that has maximum security.

If I give you much more flavor than that about the actual technological features I am exploring, then I will probably give away my idea prematurely. It will of course employ a open participation sharded design analogous to OmniLedger (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers), but there are some significant differences. And no traditional proof-of-work but every user's client does some work but not what you would normally think of as a proof-of-work (i.e. not computationally significant and not a “fungible might is right” paradigm, i.e. the work is not measured by computational difficulty). OmniLedger and most other sharded designs I’ve seen divide up security level by the number of shards. My design idea in theory maintains a constant security level regardless of the number of shards. Note please take this all as unsubstantiated story-telling conjecture until you actually see a whitepaper with some formal proofs of security.




Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 14, 2018, 02:02:03 PM
Well anyway, it's partly my fault for steering this off course but let's not make this the anonymity discussion thread. :D

Last night I found a service that sold me a little VPS for 2 dollars a month and accepted lightning so I bought it. Not sure what I'm going to do with it yet but maybe try to set up a web page for accepting lightning tips.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: andrew1carlssin on July 14, 2018, 02:50:53 PM
A thread for discussion of all things Lightning Network.

I am working on a LN simulator using
the intend is to let the .iso

https://www.nrl.navy.mil/itd/ncs/products/core

HOPE it will be available soon so we can perform some measurement ;-)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 14, 2018, 03:56:44 PM
Last night I found a service that sold me a little VPS for 2 dollars a month and accepted lightning so I bought it. Not sure what I'm going to do with it yet but maybe try to set up a web page for accepting lightning tips.

Could you post what the name of that service is? Two dollars is not really much so I don't expect that VPS to be powerful, of course.

What about updating the first post of this thread with some useful links? For example, stores which accept Lightning Network payments (http://lightningnetworkstores.com/), a list of LN wallets (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3315816.msg34624467#msg34624467), (Discussion) Is Lightning Network centralized? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg35411105#msg35411105), Lightning Network Explorer (https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/).


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: infofront on July 14, 2018, 05:14:30 PM
There's a discussion about Anonymint's ban in the Meta subforum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.160
It's probably best to keep that discussion there.

In LN news: 49% of the Bitcoin BTC Lightning Network is occupied by one node (https://ambcrypto.com/49-bitcoin-btc-lightning-network-is-occupied-one-node/)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: European Central Bank on July 14, 2018, 05:25:57 PM
In LN news: 49% of the Bitcoin BTC Lightning Network is occupied by one node (https://ambcrypto.com/49-bitcoin-btc-lightning-network-is-occupied-one-node/)

what are the implications of this?

https://twitter.com/F0nta1n3/status/1017582396923875328

according to this guy he is a bcash butt boy.

i guess if he does break it it's free testing.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 14, 2018, 06:32:30 PM
what are the implications of this?

Quoting from the article
Quote
“Yes, I am very curious about what he has planned. My guess is that he is just going to shut them all down at once and see what happens.”

This might be actually something we should worry about. Personally, I am not running a Lightning Network node but to ensure that payments made from my LN wallet won't fail, I opened a channel to one of the biggest nodes. Shutting down such node might cause to break the connection between many users which would result in failing payments.

I have just checked that node using https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/ and the total capacity of that node is 36.08798090 BTC (49.054 % of total) $225,146.42. Source: https://1ml.com/node/036b32ac6acf6d178f47c2139b7327ab85bd3d5f5c40681a9a48109ea21f53e1e5


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: JayJuanGee on July 14, 2018, 08:41:00 PM
In LN news: 49% of the Bitcoin BTC Lightning Network is occupied by one node (https://ambcrypto.com/49-bitcoin-btc-lightning-network-is-occupied-one-node/)

what are the implications of this?

https://twitter.com/F0nta1n3/status/1017582396923875328

according to this guy he is a bcash butt boy.

i guess if he does break it it's free testing.

Yes, is the evidence of the article actually true, and is it a kind of spam attack that is potentially going on the lightning network?

Also, is this part of the explanation why lightning network capacity has pretty much gone onto an exponential run, in terms of the number of bitcoins on there - seeming to double in less than a week?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 14, 2018, 08:55:45 PM
Yes, is the evidence of the article actually true, and is it a kind of spam attack that is potentially going on the lightning network?

Also, is this part of the explanation why lightning network capacity has pretty much gone onto an exponential run, in terms of the number of bitcoins on there - seeming to double in less than a week?

I don't really think if we can call it a spam attack. I would rather say that it might be an attempt to prepare for disrupting the network in the future in order to show its critical disadvantages. I have already answered it here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4638321.msg42175111#msg42175111), in case you missed it.

Yes, the capacity surged in the past 30 days by 220%. Source: https://1ml.com/statistics


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 15, 2018, 12:17:58 AM
There's a discussion about Anonymint's ban in the Meta subforum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.160
It's probably best to keep that discussion there.

In LN news: 49% of the Bitcoin BTC Lightning Network is occupied by one node (https://ambcrypto.com/49-bitcoin-btc-lightning-network-is-occupied-one-node/)

It seems like a good time to talk about how bad of a thing centralization on LN actually is. Because, the way I see it, it isn't that big of a deal, but I may be missing part of the puzzle.

There is this idea in the economics of free market capitalism that, even if an actor is a defacto monopoly, that even though he isn't constrained by existing competition, he is still constrained by the competition that will come into being if he abuses his position. This doesn't always work in the real world because monopolists employ the state to protect them against competition. However in the abstract world of permissionless adhock networks there is no state to protect a node from competition.

Even if there were only one node that everyone connected through, he would be constrained by the knowledge that if he abused his position than competition would quickly appear. He would have to keep fees so low that no one wanted to bother starting a node to compete with him. He would have to route all transactions because the moment he started censoring nodes would pop up to route those transactions. He would have to route transactions reliably and consistently because the moment he didn't new nodes would pop up to compete with him that could. He would have to find a way to be DDOS resistant because if he did not new nodes would appear to serve those who were unable to route through him due to network disruption.

Anyway, I am sure that you see where I am going with this. So I would like to know what if anything I am missing here. What is the fear of a centralized lightning network?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: infofront on July 15, 2018, 03:06:51 AM
There's a discussion about Anonymint's ban in the Meta subforum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.160
It's probably best to keep that discussion there.

In LN news: 49% of the Bitcoin BTC Lightning Network is occupied by one node (https://ambcrypto.com/49-bitcoin-btc-lightning-network-is-occupied-one-node/)

It seems like a good time to talk about how bad of a thing centralization on LN actually is. Because, the way I see it, it isn't that big of a deal, but I may be missing part of the puzzle.

There is this idea in the economics of free market capitalism that, even if an actor is a defacto monopoly, that even though he isn't constrained by existing competition, he is still constrained by the competition that will come into being if he abuses his position. This doesn't always work in the real world because monopolists employ the state to protect them against competition. However in the abstract world of permissionless adhock networks there is no state to protect a node from competition.

Even if there were only one node that everyone connected through, he would be constrained by the knowledge that if he abused his position than competition would quickly appear. He would have to keep fees so low that no one wanted to bother starting a node to compete with him. He would have to route all transactions because the moment he started censoring nodes would pop up to route those transactions. He would have to route transactions reliably and consistently because the moment he didn't new nodes would pop up to compete with him that could. He would have to find a way to be DDOS resistant because if he did not new nodes would appear to serve those who were unable to route through him due to network disruption.

Anyway, I am sure that you see where I am going with this. So I would like to know what if anything I am missing here. What is the fear of a centralized lightning network?


If someone like a banking cartel manages to control 50+% of the LN transactions, it will be difficult to replace. The replacement node(s) may be required to maintain millions of BTC in payment channels to maintain similar liquidity, which would not be easily replaceable.

Assuming governments regulate BTC and LN, as they regulate everything, they may require people to use "authorized" LN nodes, to censor nation states, drug traffickers, etc. That depends on how anonymous LN proves to be.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on July 15, 2018, 06:18:45 AM
If that was an "attack" on the Lightning Network, should it then be that someone else or more people must open channels that are worth as much liquidity in Bitcoin to balance it out?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 15, 2018, 05:16:35 PM
If that was an "attack" on the Lightning Network, should it then be that someone else or more people must open channels that are worth as much liquidity in Bitcoin to balance it out?

This wouldn't solve the problem completely. Other people would have to open channels to those who are trying to balance it out in order to preserve connectivity between the users of the Lightning Network. As I mentioned earlier, if the person who controls that node decides to shut it down then it might result in many payments not going through.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: European Central Bank on July 15, 2018, 11:24:07 PM
more about the one dominant guy on the network

https://twitter.com/ziggamon/status/1018627137320968192

according to that he wants to turn his channel into a honeypot and screw users by trapping them in it with high fees. all character building stuff i guess.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 16, 2018, 01:01:36 AM
Last night I found a service that sold me a little VPS for 2 dollars a month and accepted lightning so I bought it. Not sure what I'm going to do with it yet but maybe try to set up a web page for accepting lightning tips.

Could you post what the name of that service is? Two dollars is not really much so I don't expect that VPS to be powerful, of course.

What about updating the first post of this thread with some useful links? For example, stores which accept Lightning Network payments (http://lightningnetworkstores.com/), a list of LN wallets (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3315816.msg34624467#msg34624467), (Discussion) Is Lightning Network centralized? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg35411105#msg35411105), Lightning Network Explorer (https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/).

Sure. Here ya go https://www.lavavps.lt/en-anonymous-bitcoin-vps/ (https://www.lavavps.lt/en-anonymous-bitcoin-vps/).



If someone like a banking cartel manages to control 50+% of the LN transactions, it will be difficult to replace. The replacement node(s) may be required to maintain millions of BTC in payment channels to maintain similar liquidity, which would not be easily replaceable.

As I understand it, the lightning network isn't supposed to be for large transactions. It might more severely disrupt some marginal transactions that are above the normal denominations of every day users but below what people tend to consider worth doing on chain. And sure if a huge node like that suddenly went offline it would create disruption and force people to open new channels which would bloat the mempool and temporarily increase on chain fees. The point is that the network would heal almost organically and rather more quickly than many would surmise, I suspect.  Even that worst case scinario of one entity routing everything suddenly pulls out, would just heal naturally in time. And destroying your privileged position as largest node on the network just to cause temporary disruption that would heal probably pretty quickly? As an attack vector, it seems like a stretch.

Assuming governments regulate BTC and LN, as they regulate everything, they may require people to use "authorized" LN nodes, to censor nation states, drug traffickers, etc. That depends on how anonymous LN proves to be.

I don't think this is right. A user would only have to find one payment channel that would be willing to route his payment. So if the big centralized node was refusing to route certain payments this would create a market for routing the payments that he was unwilling to route. Smaller parallel payment channels would emerge to serve this market. Even if it wasn't very anonymous, they would stay nimble and mobile and in safe jurisdictions. I'm sure the state could succeed in increasing the fees some what for routing payments like this but probably not to oppressive levels. Where there is a shekel there is a way, as we see with drug prohibition.



more about the one dominant guy on the network

https://twitter.com/ziggamon/status/1018627137320968192

according to that he wants to turn his channel into a honeypot and screw users by trapping them in it with high fees. all character building stuff i guess.

Good good! Bring on that stress testing.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: infofront on July 16, 2018, 03:48:06 AM

If someone like a banking cartel manages to control 50+% of the LN transactions, it will be difficult to replace. The replacement node(s) may be required to maintain millions of BTC in payment channels to maintain similar liquidity, which would not be easily replaceable.

As I understand it, the lightning network isn't supposed to be for large transactions. It might more severely disrupt some marginal transactions that are above the normal denominations of every day users but below what people tend to consider worth doing on chain. And sure if a huge node like that suddenly went offline it would create disruption and force people to open new channels which would bloat the mempool and temporarily increase on chain fees. The point is that the network would heal almost organically and rather more quickly than many would surmise, I suspect.  Even that worst case scinario of one entity routing everything suddenly pulls out, would just heal naturally in time. And destroying your privileged position as largest node on the network just to cause temporary disruption that would heal probably pretty quickly? As an attack vector, it seems like a stretch.

Assuming governments regulate BTC and LN, as they regulate everything, they may require people to use "authorized" LN nodes, to censor nation states, drug traffickers, etc. That depends on how anonymous LN proves to be.

I don't think this is right. A user would only have to find one payment channel that would be willing to route his payment. So if the big centralized node was refusing to route certain payments this would create a market for routing the payments that he was unwilling to route. Smaller parallel payment channels would emerge to serve this market. Even if it wasn't very anonymous, they would stay nimble and mobile and in safe jurisdictions. I'm sure the state could succeed in increasing the fees some what for routing payments like this but probably not to oppressive levels. Where there is a shekel there is a way, as we see with drug prohibition.


I got pretty drunk last night for the Pacquiao fight and then came on the forum.

I think I had in mind lots of large transactions being moved around on the lightning network. Transacting on the base layer could become so prohibitively expensive that only $1 Billion+ transactions would be worth making on the base layer, in the event that bitcoin becomes the global reserve currency.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on July 16, 2018, 05:11:41 AM
If that was an "attack" on the Lightning Network, should it then be that someone else or more people must open channels that are worth as much liquidity in Bitcoin to balance it out?

This wouldn't solve the problem completely. Other people would have to open channels to those who are trying to balance it out in order to preserve connectivity between the users of the Lightning Network. As I mentioned earlier, if the person who controls that node decides to shut it down then it might result in many payments not going through.

I hope he does decide to close it down without warning. Hahaha. That would make a good experiment on Lightning's robustness. But I believe if there are enough connections among nodes in the network, routing payments will still go through but maybe with slight delays?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Kakmakr on July 16, 2018, 07:16:49 AM
If we say that the Lightning Network is a 2cnd layer application, targeted at micro transactions, would we clearly define what constitutes a micro transaction first? I recently saw individual channels that are funded by +/- 37 bitcoins.  ::)

This was my first impression of what the Lightning Network was developed for and that bigger transactions would still be done on-chain. In your view, would you say 1 bitcoin is a micro transaction?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 16, 2018, 07:30:40 AM
This was my first impression of what the Lightning Network was developed for and that bigger transactions would still be done on-chain. In your view, would you say 1 bitcoin is a micro transaction?

For me, it isn't. Even developers are aware that keeping large amount of bitcoins on the LN is a risky idea. I don't see anything wrong in opening channels with large amount of BTC. Their owners must be aware that they might lose their money and they can't send all of it it to because split-payments are still not implemented (the amount of BTC in channels opened with other people limits them).

Oh, I almost forgot. Currently, you can send only about 0.04 BTC at once, so 1 BTC LN transactions are not possible anyway.

But I believe if there are enough connections among nodes in the network, routing payments will still go through but maybe with slight delays?

As long as there are enough connections and funds in the channels then small delays (still lower than the time between each mined block) might occur.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: gentlemand on July 16, 2018, 09:22:53 AM
I had a whirl with the testnet version of Eclair on that Starbloqs website or whatever it was. Couldn't get it to work. I just tried the full fat version with a channel that was claiming to be active and well connected. No dice.

I think I'll go away until it's brainless. Are there plans to make it brainless?

As it stands I don't see how this would transform my life, but I would've said that about BTC itself too at one point.



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: vapourminer on July 16, 2018, 11:27:12 AM
I had a whirl with the testnet version of Eclair on that Starbloqs website or whatever it was. Couldn't get it to work. I just tried the full fat version with a channel that was claiming to be active and well connected. No dice.

I think I'll go away until it's brainless. Are there plans to make it brainless?


brainless is my middle name. guess ill have to give it a whirl and see what happens.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: buwaytress on July 16, 2018, 12:05:14 PM
If we say that the Lightning Network is a 2cnd layer application, targeted at micro transactions, would we clearly define what constitutes a micro transaction first? I recently saw individual channels that are funded by +/- 37 bitcoins.  ::)

This was my first impression of what the Lightning Network was developed for and that bigger transactions would still be done on-chain. In your view, would you say 1 bitcoin is a micro transaction?

In fact, my very very first recollection of hearing Lightning was how it could be used to make sub-satoshi payments (less than 1 satoshi), if I recall, it was a discussion about what happened when 1 satoshi was worth more than 1 cent or more, so I actually only came to know about LN being off-chain and for micropayments a bit later.

I think, personally, a micro transaction for me is anything that would be worth around the min fee in coins I'd pay for an on-chain tx. This is around 141 satoshis for me now. Though I suppose paying 141 or 10% fee for a 1,400 sat spend is probably a better gauge of what should be micro.

Blockstream goods are all under $3. Maybe that's their idea of what's micro?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: gentlemand on July 16, 2018, 12:48:43 PM
In fact, my very very first recollection of hearing Lightning was how it could be used to make sub-satoshi payments (less than 1 satoshi), if I recall, it was a discussion about what happened when 1 satoshi was worth more than 1 cent or more, so I actually only came to know about LN being off-chain and for micropayments a bit later.

I think, personally, a micro transaction for me is anything that would be worth around the min fee in coins I'd pay for an on-chain tx. This is around 141 satoshis for me now. Though I suppose paying 141 or 10% fee for a 1,400 sat spend is probably a better gauge of what should be micro.

Blockstream goods are all under $3. Maybe that's their idea of what's micro?

Can anyone point me to some good run downs of where micropayments will transform things?

Right now micro payment to me appears to be asking for payment for something that was previously free that I don't value anyway that I'd rather go without than pay for such as articles or vids. I suppose there is that much fabled coffee.

I would've thought machine to machine stuff is where lightning networks will end up shining.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: buwaytress on July 16, 2018, 02:42:35 PM
In fact, my very very first recollection of hearing Lightning was how it could be used to make sub-satoshi payments (less than 1 satoshi), if I recall, it was a discussion about what happened when 1 satoshi was worth more than 1 cent or more, so I actually only came to know about LN being off-chain and for micropayments a bit later.

I think, personally, a micro transaction for me is anything that would be worth around the min fee in coins I'd pay for an on-chain tx. This is around 141 satoshis for me now. Though I suppose paying 141 or 10% fee for a 1,400 sat spend is probably a better gauge of what should be micro.

Blockstream goods are all under $3. Maybe that's their idea of what's micro?

Can anyone point me to some good run downs of where micropayments will transform things?

Right now micro payment to me appears to be asking for payment for something that was previously free that I don't value anyway that I'd rather go without than pay for such as articles or vids. I suppose there is that much fabled coffee.

I would've thought machine to machine stuff is where lightning networks will end up shining.

Maybe this is relevant, maybe it isn't, but up until 2015, I worked for many years in countries whose economies have been described as broken or failing. Because of the absolute value of goods there, I worked with entire communities that lived on micropayments on day to day basis. Mobile phone credit top ups? Tea/sugar/milk for the week? Daily groceries. Painkillers. Soap and shampoo, detergent - these all come in small sachets less than $0.01 in absolute value. Just some of the goods I remember every camp, every shop, every rural stall stocked up in the Southern hemisphere. Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Sudan.

I saw how mobile-based micropayments systems did wonders for people. They couldn't carry cash much, or didn't earn much, but they paid with credits on their phone for these daily goods. You can read about how Mpesa changed a lot of lives in Kenya (I had the pleasure of using it myself) and Bitcoin startups like Bitpesa are following in the footsteps of microfinance. Edit: I forgot to add a link to read: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/africa/mpesa-10th-anniversary/index.html

Maybe I'm wrong, but I saw some of that mirrored in Lightning Network. Couple it with mesh networking or even satellite use in areas where there's no Internet... I don't know.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: gentlemand on July 16, 2018, 05:01:24 PM
Maybe this is relevant, maybe it isn't,

It is. That all makes a great deal of sense. I was thinking like the fat cracker that I am. All too easy to forget that what's a cool idea in decadenceville may elevate living standards for the many elsewhere.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 16, 2018, 07:09:59 PM
If we say that the Lightning Network is a 2cnd layer application, targeted at micro transactions, would we clearly define what constitutes a micro transaction first? I recently saw individual channels that are funded by +/- 37 bitcoins.  ::)

This was my first impression of what the Lightning Network was developed for and that bigger transactions would still be done on-chain. In your view, would you say 1 bitcoin is a micro transaction?

Bitcoin on chain transactions will probably never scale above opening and closing lightning channels and swift style inter bank clearing. You know, in the longer term. That which doesn't fit on the first layer will be pushed off to the second. Simple as that.



I think I'll go away until it's brainless. Are there plans to make it brainless?

With Bitcoin Lightning Wallet on android it's pretty brainless. Probably too brainy for the truly brainless, random middle aged ladies and what not, but probably close enough to the sort of brainless you are interested in.



Right now micro payment to me appears to be asking for payment for something that was previously free that I don't value anyway that I'd rather go without than pay for such as articles or vids. I suppose there is that much fabled coffee.

This thought process falls victim to the problem of the seen and the unseen. You are failing to see the services that do not exist (an easy thing to fall victim to) but would exist if micro payments did exist. It is difficult to say whether or not you would be willing to pay for those or not, seeing as they don't exist, but you very well might.

I would've thought machine to machine stuff is where lightning networks will end up shining.

Definitely. Imagine being able to bid for the transportation of discrete chunks of data. You just say "hey neighboring physical infrastructure nodes, I wan't this chunk of data to be transported to this address, who can do it the cheapest? who can do it the most quickly?" And your neighboring physical infrastructure nodes perform the same calculation, and the ones next to them the same calculation, et al. Then the price for each route comes cascading backwards all the way to each of the nodes that are physically adjacent to you and to you, you then pick your preferred trade off between price, bandwidth and latency. No need for data plans, almost impossible to censor, so much more private, and a network that could organically adapt to a living pulse of price signals. Heck even the north Korean government couldn't censor an internet like that. And that's surely just scratching the surface.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on July 16, 2018, 07:57:51 PM
If we say that the Lightning Network is a 2cnd layer application, targeted at micro transactions, would we clearly define what constitutes a micro transaction first? I recently saw individual channels that are funded by +/- 37 bitcoins.  ::)

This was my first impression of what the Lightning Network was developed for and that bigger transactions would still be done on-chain. In your view, would you say 1 bitcoin is a micro transaction?

Bitcoin on chain transactions will probably never scale above opening and closing lightning channels and swift style inter bank clearing. You know, in the longer term. That which doesn't fit on the first layer will be pushed off to the second. Simple as that.
Once a problem looks to be a challenge on first layer, one should firstly think of improving the infrastructure. Bitcoin is not a rigid, dead system. This infrastructure has more potentials to be unleashed and yet we have sharding solutions in the horizon as well. Sharding is a first layer protocol, an on-chain scalability solution.

Sharding is more elegant and beautiful compared to ugly complicated second layer solutions like LN, which completely abstracts users from the consensus algorithm, the way google, facebook, .... ruined the Internet and turned it to such a dangerous place for ordinary people by compromising their privacy and security. I suppose you guys have a same agenda for destroying bitcoin by putting people behind layers of abstraction.

It is an insane strategy. Bitcoin needs fresh breath to breath interaction with users and simplicity. Only a corporate employee would take second layer development serious, a hacker, just don't GAS.  ;)

Quote
I would've thought machine to machine stuff is where lightning networks will end up shining.

Definitely. Imagine being able to bid for the transportation of discrete chunks of data. You just say "hey neighboring physical infrastructure nodes, I wan't this chunk of data to be transported to this address, who can do it the cheapest? who can do it the most quickly?" And your neighboring physical infrastructure nodes perform the same calculation, and the ones next to them the same calculation, et al. Then the price for each route comes cascading backwards all the way to each of the nodes that are physically adjacent to you and to you, you then pick your preferred trade off between price, bandwidth and latency. No need for data plans, almost impossible to censor, so much more private, and a network that could organically adapt to a living pulse of price signals. Heck even the north Korean government couldn't censor an internet like that. And that's surely just scratching the surface.
Good dreams, non of them feasible yet, who is in charge of routing this messages?
Anyway, what the hell is it?  A 4th layer IP on bitcoin on tcp/ip on ip protocol?  ;D



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: vapourminer on July 16, 2018, 08:15:17 PM
a request from Shelby. to be considered a last contribution, and perhaps further some more useful discussion on the matter (without his now banned input of course).

If someone is willing to link or quote this in the LN discussion thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4638321.msg42191202#msg42191202), I suppose that would stimulate the discussion points over there. I guess my last contribution.

I had clearly explained that Lightning Networks will work fine with Satoshi’s protocol once it centralizes (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4638321.msg42110420#msg42110420) as it must because it is a natural monopoly:

For example the current LN thread discussion is incorrect or incomplete (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4638321.msg42191202#msg42191202) ever since @anunymint was nuked from the thread. They do not understand the concept of a natural monopoly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly) and that the liquidity scale is the barrier-to-entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly#Definition) in LN because users always need to be where the liquidity is as exemplified by exchanges, especially in payment systems because merchants and users don’t want to be stuck and not be able to checkout the shopping cart.

Scale = better service (routing, etc) and higher liquidity

Decentralized exchanges have failed because everyone needs to be where the liquidity is. Much more so for payment systems. When someone can’t route their payment because of insufficient liquidity, both the merchant and the customer lose.

The LN Mt.Gox hubs can then leverage this need into entrenched oligarchies, which can dictate terms to users and merchants. Visa and Mastercard here we come again.

Nothing changes. We are right back where we started from.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 16, 2018, 09:12:59 PM
Once a problem looks to be a challenge on first layer, one should firstly think of improving the infrastructure. Bitcoin is not a rigid, dead system. This infrastructure has more potentials to be unleashed and yet we have sharding solutions in the horizon as well. Sharding is a first layer protocol, an on-chain scalability solution.

Sharding is more elegant and beautiful compared to ugly complicated second layer solutions like LN, which completely abstracts users from the consensus algorithm, the way google, facebook, .... ruined the Internet and turned it to such a dangerous place for ordinary people by compromising their privacy and security. I suppose you guys have a same agenda for destroying bitcoin by putting people behind layers of abstraction.

It is an insane strategy. Bitcoin needs fresh breath to breath interaction with users and simplicity. Only a corporate employee would take second layer development serious, a hacker, just don't GAS.  ;)

Do we have an example of sharding that actually works and scales atleast nearly as well as LN? Has it been tested not just theorized? If that project exists than I am interested in it.


Good dreams, non of them feasible yet, who is in charge of routing this messages?
Anyway, what the hell is it?  A 4th layer IP on bitcoin on tcp/ip on ip protocol?  ;D

A socialist? Here on bitcoin talk? I never thought I would see that. No, but seriously, without a central planer how will farmers know which processing plants to route their soybeans to? How will grocery stores know which customers to route which products to? Having an entity "in charge" of routing is precisely the problem that I was hoping a truly scalable cryptocurrency could solve.

I could make some guesses about how it might be done but that is beyond the scope of this thread so we probably shouldn't go too far down this particular rabbit hole here. I'll say, it could work something like the address it's self encodes some data about its rough location on planet earth, then nodes early in the chain could just begin by roughing it "thattaway" and later nodes in the chain would have more detailed maps of their local network topography. That's just one possible idea out of nearly infinity. The inability to think of something here is not proof that it wouldn't work, its proof of a failure of imagination.

What matters for this discussion is not the solution, but whether or not it is soluble. What matters is, when cash is up for grabs, will individual entrepreneurs be able to figure out how to forward data in such a way as to get it generally closer to it's destination than it was before? That's actually not a tall order. Most of the time you will need to get to your nearest city first, then the nearest regional hub, then from there to the regional hub nearest your destination and same process out to your destination. It really isn't rocket science.

*edit* haha we don't even use source routing right now! there isn't even an centralized entity "in charge of routing" right now!


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 16, 2018, 09:29:20 PM
Decentralized exchanges have failed because everyone needs to be where the liquidity is. Much more so for payment systems. When someone can’t route their payment because of insufficient liquidity, both the merchant and the customer lose.

Decentralized exchanges are still in a raw state. They are not newbie friendly, just like the Lightning Network. I wouldn't call them a failure because there is still a lot of work which needs to be done. We still lack user-friendly Lightning Network wallets which could provide channel backup and easy full-node setup process. There is a risk that the whole network becomes more centralized in the future because of people opening their channels to the biggest nodes or depending on a third party. Despite all this facts, the number of nodes and users is constantly growing and you must be asking yourself, why is that?

Lightning Network is still in its early state, why not compare it to the early days of Bitcoin when it was fairly easy to take over the network with a 51% attack? Give it some more time. Nobody expects to see every Bitcoin user using the Lightning Network this year.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: bitcoineverything on July 17, 2018, 03:28:20 AM
Just want to share a video here from two of the prime founders of Lightning network Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja. The video was made in the year 2015.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zVzw912wPo

The video made me understand what lightning network is.  ;)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 17, 2018, 04:25:30 AM
Lightning Network Mainnet Faucet - Community Jar (https://www.coinpanic.com/Lightning/CommunityJar)

Although is this really useful when you can't open a channel without putting in some funds to begin with? Does anyone know of a node that will open a channel with you for no cost?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Kakmakr on July 17, 2018, 05:36:20 AM
If we say that the Lightning Network is a 2cnd layer application, targeted at micro transactions, would we clearly define what constitutes a micro transaction first? I recently saw individual channels that are funded by +/- 37 bitcoins.  ::)

This was my first impression of what the Lightning Network was developed for and that bigger transactions would still be done on-chain. In your view, would you say 1 bitcoin is a micro transaction?

Bitcoin on chain transactions will probably never scale above opening and closing lightning channels and swift style inter bank clearing. You know, in the longer term. That which doesn't fit on the first layer will be pushed off to the second. Simple as that.
Once a problem looks to be a challenge on first layer, one should firstly think of improving the infrastructure. Bitcoin is not a rigid, dead system. This infrastructure has more potentials to be unleashed and yet we have sharding solutions in the horizon as well. Sharding is a first layer protocol, an on-chain scalability solution.

Sharding is more elegant and beautiful compared to ugly complicated second layer solutions like LN, which completely abstracts users from the consensus algorithm, the way google, facebook, .... ruined the Internet and turned it to such a dangerous place for ordinary people by compromising their privacy and security. I suppose you guys have a same agenda for destroying bitcoin by putting people behind layers of abstraction.

It is an insane strategy. Bitcoin needs fresh breath to breath interaction with users and simplicity. Only a corporate employee would take second layer development serious, a hacker, just don't GAS.  ;)

Quote
I would've thought machine to machine stuff is where lightning networks will end up shining.

Definitely. Imagine being able to bid for the transportation of discrete chunks of data. You just say "hey neighboring physical infrastructure nodes, I wan't this chunk of data to be transported to this address, who can do it the cheapest? who can do it the most quickly?" And your neighboring physical infrastructure nodes perform the same calculation, and the ones next to them the same calculation, et al. Then the price for each route comes cascading backwards all the way to each of the nodes that are physically adjacent to you and to you, you then pick your preferred trade off between price, bandwidth and latency. No need for data plans, almost impossible to censor, so much more private, and a network that could organically adapt to a living pulse of price signals. Heck even the north Korean government couldn't censor an internet like that. And that's surely just scratching the surface.
Good dreams, non of them feasible yet, who is in charge of routing this messages?
Anyway, what the hell is it?  A 4th layer IP on bitcoin on tcp/ip on ip protocol?  ;D



WTF, We are not trying to destroy Bitcoin, we are just discussing the Pro's and Con's of the technology and how to utilize it in the best manner to get the most out of it. I am saying, that the Lightning Network developers should consider defining, what a micro payment should be to utilize the system to it's full potential.

The parameters that are used now, is just temporary?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on July 17, 2018, 05:50:58 AM
a request from Shelby. to be considered a last contribution, and perhaps further some more useful discussion on the matter (without his now banned input of course).

If someone is willing to link or quote this in the LN discussion thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4638321.msg42191202#msg42191202), I suppose that would stimulate the discussion points over there. I guess my last contribution.

I had clearly explained that Lightning Networks will work fine with Satoshi’s protocol once it centralizes (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4638321.msg42110420#msg42110420) as it must because it is a natural monopoly:

For example the current LN thread discussion is incorrect or incomplete (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4638321.msg42191202#msg42191202) ever since @anunymint was nuked from the thread. They do not understand the concept of a natural monopoly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly) and that the liquidity scale is the barrier-to-entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly#Definition) in LN because users always need to be where the liquidity is as exemplified by exchanges, especially in payment systems because merchants and users don’t want to be stuck and not be able to checkout the shopping cart.

Scale = better service (routing, etc) and higher liquidity

Decentralized exchanges have failed because everyone needs to be where the liquidity is. Much more so for payment systems. When someone can’t route their payment because of insufficient liquidity, both the merchant and the customer lose.

The LN Mt.Gox hubs can then leverage this need into entrenched oligarchies, which can dictate terms to users and merchants. Visa and Mastercard here we come again.

Nothing changes. We are right back where we started from.
Right to the point. This is why I objected to banning Shelby. The guy got a vision, I hate it but it is real and it works for me to understand on which side I am or I'm not.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on July 17, 2018, 06:07:45 AM


WTF, We are not trying to destroy Bitcoin, we are just discussing the Pro's and Con's of the technology and how to utilize it in the best manner to get the most out of it. I am saying, that the Lightning Network developers should consider defining, what a micro payment should be to utilize the system to it's full potential.

The parameters that are used now, is just temporary?

Yeah, you're already done with destroying bitcoin, I get it.  ;)

Bitcoin is not an infrastructure, it is the system, remember? Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin, turning it to something it was not meant to be.

For years, teaching noobs about bitcoin, I've been  used to begin with telling them the Internet story and how its decentralized nature is hided from them by centralized services on top of it. Now what do I have tell to them? Like "Hey, Bitcoin is decentralized, don't worry, it is the fault of second layer protocols that you are being spied and censored"?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 17, 2018, 06:21:00 AM
Bitcoin is not an infrastructure, it is the system, remember? Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin, turning it to something it was not meant to be.

For years, teaching noobs about bitcoin, I've been  used to begin with telling them the Internet story and how its decentralized nature is hided from them by centralized services on top of it. Now what do I have tell to them? Like

This is such garbage. A second layer solution doesn't "turn bitcoin into something that it wasn't meant to be" because it doesn't do anything to the original Bitcoin. The original bitcoin will still be there, unmolested, following the initial vision. Unless you consider segwit to be too much of a departure. In which case segwit isn't lightning network or a second layer solution so you will have to take that up elsewhere.

Bitcoin is open and permissionless. People can stack what ever the hell they want on top of it. Who are you to tell people how they an and can't use the blockchain when their transactions are following all of the rules of the protocol?


"Hey, Bitcoin is decentralized, don't worry, it is the fault of second layer protocols that you are being spied and censored"?

No one can censor anyone over LN. If a particular group of node operators are censoring you than you can route your transaction through any one else on the entire planet who is willing to do it for you instead. Garbage nonsense FUD.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on July 17, 2018, 06:38:37 AM
Once a problem looks to be a challenge on first layer, one should firstly think of improving the infrastructure. Bitcoin is not a rigid, dead system. This infrastructure has more potentials to be unleashed and yet we have sharding solutions in the horizon as well. Sharding is a first layer protocol, an on-chain scalability solution.

Sharding is more elegant and beautiful compared to ugly complicated second layer solutions like LN, which completely abstracts users from the consensus algorithm, the way google, facebook, .... ruined the Internet and turned it to such a dangerous place for ordinary people by compromising their privacy and security. I suppose you guys have a same agenda for destroying bitcoin by putting people behind layers of abstraction.

It is an insane strategy. Bitcoin needs fresh breath to breath interaction with users and simplicity. Only a corporate employee would take second layer development serious, a hacker, just don't GAS.  ;)

Do we have an example of sharding that actually works and scales at least nearly as well as LN? Has it been tested not just theorized? If that project exists than I am interested in it.
We don't need sharding yet, the scalability and micro payment problems are not actually around yet, they are not urgent.  To get sharding to work, we need 'getting rid of pools' by improving the protocol, sharding doesn't work fine with pools. First things first!

Quote
Good dreams, non of them feasible yet, who is in charge of routing this messages?
Anyway, what the hell is it?  A 4th layer IP on bitcoin on tcp/ip on ip protocol?  ;D

A socialist? Here on bitcoin talk? I never thought I would see that. ...
WTF? are you kidding? We are all socialists here, we have always been and we will be socialists!

Btctalk is funded by Satoshi Nakamoto, remember?

It is about Bitcoin! Sounds familiar? Yes! Yes! The internet money that is supposed to retire banks of any kind all over the globe and it is decentralized and trustless and public and open!

Wait! Have you ever heard of Bitcoin's axiom of resistance ?
Nop?!
No kidding, 1000+ posts and you don't have a clue about where you are ... fucking amazing.

Quote
... No, but seriously, without a central planer how will farmers know which processing plants to route their soybeans to? How will grocery stores know which customers to route which products to? Having an entity "in charge" of routing is precisely the problem that I was hoping a truly scalable cryptocurrency could solve.
Ok then. Centers are seriously needed, because you can't imagine how a p2p system work, ok, I understand, you should join to an internship or something, I understand, you need help.

Quote
I could make some guesses about how it might be done but that is beyond the scope of this thread so we probably shouldn't go too far down this particular rabbit hole here. I'll say, it could work something like the address it's self encodes some data about its rough location on planet earth, then nodes early in the chain could just begin by roughing it "thattaway" and later nodes in the chain would have more detailed maps of their local network topography. That's just one possible idea out of nearly infinity. The inability to think of something here is not proof that it wouldn't work, its proof of a failure of imagination.
Noway! Addresses aren't zip codes, thanks god!

Quote
What matters for this discussion is not the solution, but whether or not it is soluble. What matters is, when cash is up for grabs, will individual entrepreneurs be able to figure out how to forward data in such a way as to get it generally closer to it's destination than it was before? That's actually not a tall order. Most of the time you will need to get to your nearest city first, then the nearest regional hub, then from there to the regional hub nearest your destination and same process out to your destination. It really isn't rocket science.
No, it is not soluble without ruining decentralization agenda of cryptocurrency. We have banks, traditional banking, which is an ultimate centralized solution, you can't optimize it a bit in a centralized framework.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on July 17, 2018, 06:42:08 AM


WTF, We are not trying to destroy Bitcoin, we are just discussing the Pro's and Con's of the technology and how to utilize it in the best manner to get the most out of it. I am saying, that the Lightning Network developers should consider defining, what a micro payment should be to utilize the system to it's full potential.

The parameters that are used now, is just temporary?

Yeah, you're already done with destroying bitcoin, I get it.  ;)

Bitcoin is not an infrastructure, it is the system, remember? Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin,

Ruining it how? Bitcoin is an open system that is open for developers to build tools on top of it. The Lightning Network is one such tool.

Quote
turning it to something it was not meant to be.

Is that your argument? Hahaha.

You need to make a transaction onchain to open a Lightning channel, technically it is still functioning as it was meant to be.

Quote
For years, teaching noobs about bitcoin, I've been  used to begin with telling them the Internet story and how its decentralized nature is hided from them by centralized services on top of it. Now what do I have tell to them? Like "Hey, Bitcoin is decentralized, don't worry, it is the fault of second layer protocols that you are being spied and censored"?

Post your credentials, and who are you if you stand by that claim of authority.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: buwaytress on July 17, 2018, 06:46:08 AM
Maybe this is relevant, maybe it isn't,

It is. That all makes a great deal of sense. I was thinking like the fat cracker that I am. All too easy to forget that what's a cool idea in decadenceville may elevate living standards for the many elsewhere.

You're not a fat cracker, you mucker. Just a bit chubby from the grease on the crackers ;) It is easy to forget though, but sometimes it is necessary to forget otherwise reality grounds people down too much to be able to come up with all those cool ideas that even I enjoy every now and then. I really, badly, want to be a cool LN'er one of these days. Of course, reading threads like these, I must come up against the reality that I may never know enough to be truly cool.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on July 17, 2018, 06:48:46 AM
Bitcoin is not an infrastructure, it is the system, remember? Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin, turning it to something it was not meant to be.

For years, teaching noobs about bitcoin, I've been  used to begin with telling them the Internet story and how its decentralized nature is hided from them by centralized services on top of it. Now what do I have tell to them? Like

This is such garbage. A second layer solution doesn't "turn bitcoin into something that it wasn't meant to be" because it doesn't do anything to the original Bitcoin. The original bitcoin will still be there, unmolested, following the initial vision. Unless you consider segwit to be too much of a departure. In which case segwit isn't lightning network or a second layer solution so you will have to take that up elsewhere.

Bitcoin is open and permissionless. People can stack what ever the hell they want on top of it. Who are you to tell people how they an and can't use the blockchain when their transactions are following all of the rules of the protocol?
You don't get it. But I seriously like the confidence, reminds me of Shelby  ;)
Of course piling garbages on top of network has nothing to do with the original bitcoin, it just ruins the community and user base.
Well, you don't get it, and it is not your fault. I understand.
Quote

"Hey, Bitcoin is decentralized, don't worry, it is the fault of second layer protocols that you are being spied and censored"?

No one can censor anyone over LN. If a particular group of node operators are censoring you than you can route your transaction through any one else on the entire planet who is willing to do it for you instead. Garbage nonsense FUD.
And if that particular group of LN nodes happened to be the most shining part that can afford fastest and cheapest service, then what do I have to do with my misery, your honor? Just have to pay more and wiat more?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on July 17, 2018, 07:03:44 AM


WTF, We are not trying to destroy Bitcoin, we are just discussing the Pro's and Con's of the technology and how to utilize it in the best manner to get the most out of it. I am saying, that the Lightning Network developers should consider defining, what a micro payment should be to utilize the system to it's full potential.

The parameters that are used now, is just temporary?

Yeah, you're already done with destroying bitcoin, I get it.  ;)

Bitcoin is not an infrastructure, it is the system, remember? Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin,

Ruining it how? Bitcoin is an open system that is open for developers to build tools on top of it. The Lightning Network is one such tool.

Quote
turning it to something it was not meant to be.

Is that your argument? Hahaha.

You need to make a transaction onchain to open a Lightning channel, technically it is still functioning as it was meant to be.
And it is yours? hahaha


Quote

Quote
For years, teaching noobs about bitcoin, I've been  used to begin with telling them the Internet story and how its decentralized nature is hided from them by centralized services on top of it. Now what do I have tell to them? Like "Hey, Bitcoin is decentralized, don't worry, it is the fault of second layer protocols that you are being spied and censored"?

Post your credentials, and who are you if you stand by that claim of authority.
This has nothing to do with my credentials. I don't need any kind of authority and didn't claim it. I'm telling a simple story about how a decentralized infrastructure like tcp/ip turned to be hidden by centralized, second layer protocols and you don't understand a word of mine.

I'm not talking about LN, I'm against any second layer protocol on bitcoin, I maintain that bitcoin IS NOT an infrastructure it is a complete system, it should be, it is meant to be.

Off-chain/second layer solutions of any kind, by any name are just a statement of failure for bitcoin.

You guys are hypocrites, little, sneaky hypocrites. Instead of focusing on bitcoin as a system, an electronic P2P cash system, you are giving up with it and are rushing to LN as the solution, the shelter.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: infofront on July 17, 2018, 07:57:15 PM
This has nothing to do with my credentials. I don't need any kind of authority and didn't claim it. I'm telling a simple story about how a decentralized infrastructure like tcp/ip turned to be hidden by centralized, second layer protocols and you don't understand a word of mine.

I'm not talking about LN, I'm against any second layer protocol on bitcoin, I maintain that bitcoin IS NOT an infrastructure it is a complete system, it should be, it is meant to be.

Off-chain/second layer solutions of any kind, by any name are just a statement of failure for bitcoin.

You guys are hypocrites, little, sneaky hypocrites. Instead of focusing on bitcoin as a system, an electronic P2P cash system, you are giving up with it and are rushing to LN as the solution, the shelter.

You're absolutely, 100% wrong.

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties. They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement.  The party giving money would be the first to sign the next version.  If one party stops agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime.  If desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1 parties can push an unresponsive party out.  Intermediate transactions do not need to be broadcast.  Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network.  Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Last of the V8s on July 17, 2018, 08:58:50 PM
This has nothing to do with my credentials. I don't need any kind of authority and didn't claim it. I'm telling a simple story about how a decentralized infrastructure like tcp/ip turned to be hidden by centralized, second layer protocols and you don't understand a word of mine.

I'm not talking about LN, I'm against any second layer protocol on bitcoin, I maintain that bitcoin IS NOT an infrastructure it is a complete system, it should be, it is meant to be.

Off-chain/second layer solutions of any kind, by any name are just a statement of failure for bitcoin.

You guys are hypocrites, little, sneaky hypocrites. Instead of focusing on bitcoin as a system, an electronic P2P cash system, you are giving up with it and are rushing to LN as the solution, the shelter.

You're absolutely, 100% wrong.

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties. They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement.  The party giving money would be the first to sign the next version.  If one party stops agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime.  If desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1 parties can push an unresponsive party out.  Intermediate transactions do not need to be broadcast.  Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network.  Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw.



Idea #1: Suppose a company can issue its own version of the bitcoin concept as "stocks" (bitstock?).  I know this has been talked about on other threads as well.  What would be the implications of high-frequency trading on the infrastructure borrowed from bitcoin?

In a private email exchange some time ago, Satoshi had the following to say about HFT:

Quote from: satoshi
Quote from: mike
I haven't fully understood why sequence numbers are a property of the tx inputs rather than the tx itself.

It's for contracts.  An unrecorded open transaction can keep being replaced until nLockTime.  It may contain payments by multiple parties.  Each input owner signs their input.  For a new version to be written, each must sign a higher sequence number (see IsNewerThan).  By signing, an input owner says "I agree to put my money in, if everyone puts their money in and the outputs are this."  There are other options in SignatureHash such as SIGHASH_SINGLE which means "I agree, as long as this one output (i.e. mine) is what I want, I don't care what you do with the other outputs.".  If that's written with a high nSequenceNumber, the party can bow out of the negotiation except for that one stipulation, or sign SIGHASH_NONE and bow out completely.

The parties could create a pre-agreed default option by creating a higher nSequenceNumber tx using OP_CHECKMULTISIG that requires a subset of parties to sign to complete the signature.  The parties hold this tx in reserve and if need be, pass it around until it has enough signatures.

One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties.  They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement.  The party giving money would be the first to sign the next version.  If one party stops agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime.  If desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1 parties can push an unresponsive party out.  Intermediate transactions do not need to be broadcast.  Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network.  Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw.

The nLockTime feature is not used in BitCoin today. However it is apparent that Satoshi considered this use case ahead of time, as he did with so many others.

I can't be bothered to read anyone's arguments about LN back here, but let's be clear about one thing, there is no use quoting what Hearn claimed 7 years ago that satoshi said as an argument for anything.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 17, 2018, 09:10:42 PM
Anyone mess around with Autopilot in lnd ?

Just dusting off some of my coins and trying out this Lightning Network thing.

I'm wondering if Autopilot is smart enough to know to shut down not-productive channels, and re-establish new ones after a while.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 17, 2018, 09:14:54 PM
It has become apparent to me that aliashraf is just a troll. Time for the ignore list.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: infofront on July 17, 2018, 09:19:11 PM
I can't be bothered to read anyone's arguments about LN back here, but let's be clear about one thing, there is no use quoting what Hearn claimed 7 years ago that satoshi said as an argument for anything.

Is doesn't matter. Satoshi quote or not, nLockTime was included in bitcoin early on.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on July 17, 2018, 09:23:47 PM
Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin, turning it to something it was not meant to be.

I thought you were of the opinion that Bitcoin was already ruined because of numerous other reasons.  You don't like the ASICs, you don't like mining pools, you don't like Lightning.  Is there any part of Bitcoin you do like?  Just about all the changes you would implement if it were up to you simply aren't compatible with the software everyone else on the network is running.  It doesn't look like you're going to find what you desire here.  At some point you might stop to consider why you're actually following this chain if it's such a lost cause in your lofty opinion.


Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties. They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement.  The party giving money would be the first to sign the next version.  If one party stops agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime.  If desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1 parties can push an unresponsive party out.  Intermediate transactions do not need to be broadcast.  Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network.  Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw.

Indeed.  While Dryja and Poon are often credited as the inventors of Lightning, it seems Satoshi had some remarkably similar ideas.  Maybe we were always destined to get an off-chain option in some form or another.  I wonder if the development timeframe would have been similar if Satoshi had stuck around.  Or would we have possibly got Lightning (or a close approximation of it) a little sooner?  Or perhaps it would have been an idea Satoshi stuck on the back-burner and never got around to implementing?  Pity we'll never know.


I can't be bothered to read anyone's arguments about LN back here, but let's be clear about one thing, there is no use quoting what Hearn claimed 7 years ago that satoshi said as an argument for anything.

I get that Hearn isn't the most beloved figure in the community, but I don't see what there would be to gain in fabricating that email, if that's what you're suggesting.  I do concede that just because Satoshi talked about it, that doesn't mean it was something they definitely wanted to implement, though.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Last of the V8s on July 17, 2018, 09:23:54 PM
I can't be bothered to read anyone's arguments about LN back here, but let's be clear about one thing, there is no use quoting what Hearn claimed 7 years ago that satoshi said as an argument for anything.

Is doesn't matter. Satoshi quote or not, nLockTime was included in bitcoin early on.
Plus lots of other shit that turned out to be bad ideas.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on July 17, 2018, 09:25:42 PM

I can't be bothered to read anyone's arguments about LN back here, but let's be clear about one thing, there is no use quoting what Hearn claimed 7 years ago that satoshi said as an argument for anything.
Indeed.

Plus, I don't care whether Satoshi really was a fan of second layer protocols or not, he made a lot of mistakes (picking sha2 as PoW algo, for instance).
I'm not talking about a person.

My argument here is about bitcoin as a system.
I'm not worried about people trying to get advantage of bitcoin as an infrastructure too, I'm worried about projecting most crucial problems to second layer, by Core devs.
Lightening Network is not, should not be, the first and the last words a developper in charge of supporting the protocol has to say when he is asked about scalability.

Scalability is an on-chain problem, it has always been. Projecting it to off-chain solutions, is kinda cheating. I think payment channels are good, not everywhere for every problem.

Payment channels are good for recurring unidirectional payments, like when you incrementally pay for a service or something, adding features to this technique, making it bidirectional, multi-party, somewhat routable, ...  is nothing less than competing with bitcoin itself!

It is amazingly insane, watching people who discussing LN like an abstraction layer that is supposed to absorb all the transactions and leave bitcoin with LN's own huge flush transactions alone.

Oh, give me a break please!


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 17, 2018, 09:27:56 PM
Does anyone know of a node that will open a channel with you for no cost?

How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?

I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on July 17, 2018, 09:38:44 PM
Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin, turning it to something it was not meant to be.

I thought you were of the opinion that Bitcoin was already ruined because of numerous other reasons.  You don't like the ASICs, you don't like mining pools, you don't like Lightning.  Is there any part of Bitcoin you do like?  Just about all the changes you would implement if it were up to you simply aren't compatible with the software everyone else on the network is running.  It doesn't look like you're going to find what you desire here.  At some point you might stop to consider why you're actually following this chain if it's such a lost cause in your lofty opinion.


What's this, you are a stucker?
Remain focused on the subject if you don't mind.

My argument: Projecting scalability to second layer protocols, is cheap practice. It abstracts users from real bitcoin and contradicts with most canonical feature of bitcoin: being public. Period.

As of my opinions about  ASICs and pools as the centralization gredients in bitcoin, I have rights to maintain my concerns about this topics and you and your friends have not patented bitcoin (yet) so, I keep discussing this subjects and trying to convince people to commit and contribute in improving bitcoin, whether you guys like it or not. 


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 17, 2018, 09:46:51 PM
My argument: Projecting scalability to second layer protocols, is cheap practice.

What the fuck are you talking about ?

"Hurr durr let's all use telnet and raw-command all the things as a reasonable practice"

Get your head out of your ass.

Nobody is forcing you to use lightning. Use the main chain all you want, if you wish to remain a purist.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on July 17, 2018, 10:01:07 PM
My argument: Projecting scalability to second layer protocols, is cheap practice.

What the fuck are you talking about ?

"Hurr durr let's all use telnet and raw-command all the things as a reasonable practice"

Get your head out of your ass.

Nobody is forcing you to use lightning. Use the main chain all you want, if you wish to remain a purist.
Thanks for the permission  ;D

But wait ... if you dumb asses stick with your fucking toy and instead of committing to improve things, just start 'flushing' your shits on the chain, we 'purists' would have trouble, genius.

So many 'legendary' titles dancing here with no clue ... just amazing.

Anyway, I leave you guys, with your 'high level' experience with an electronic cash transfer system, god bless LN. No further posts in this trash.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 17, 2018, 10:05:40 PM
But wait ... if you dumb asses stick with your fucking toy and instead of committing to improve things, just start 'flushing' your shits on the chain, we 'purists' would have trouble, genius.
So many 'legendary' titles dancing here with no clue ... just amazing.

Hey.

Suck my Segwit-using dick, eh ?

Fucking triangle.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on July 17, 2018, 10:36:23 PM
It has become apparent to me that aliashraf is just a troll. Time for the ignore list.

+1


Anyway, I leave you guys, with your 'high level' experience with an electronic cash transfer system, god bless LN. No further posts in this trash.

Are you (by any chance) going to leave Bitcointalk, then come back, then say you're leaving again, then come back again ad infinitum?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 17, 2018, 10:47:39 PM
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?

I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.

Channel factories. Existing Lightning Network channels could be used for creating new channels without broadcasting anything to the rest of the Bitcoin network. Normally, a channel is opened to only one person. In channel factories we have multiple people forming a group. Group members maintain channels between themselves. More interested users = higher savings. If one of the participants is uncooperative, existing channels are not affected - new channels can't be created, though.

You can find more detailed description here (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/67158/what-are-channel-factories-and-how-do-they-work/67187).


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 17, 2018, 11:11:57 PM
You can find more detailed description here (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/67158/what-are-channel-factories-and-how-do-they-work/67187).

Thanks.

I read through that. All that was missing is "How do I set up a channel-factory ?"

Is this something that is currently supported ? Anyone successfully set one up yet ?

Where do I sign up ? Is this something we can screw around with here ?

Sorry for the wall-of-questions. Getting back into this Bitcoin thing, and Lightning really does seem interesting to me.

Got my node all working and stuff, so super happy about that.

I read some post by the guy running shitcoin.com, setting up his node, and it got me super interested.

https://medium.com/andreas-tries-blockchain/bitcoin-lightning-network-1-can-i-compile-and-run-a-node-cd3138c68c15


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on July 18, 2018, 02:24:44 AM

Anyway, I leave you guys, with your 'high level' experience with an electronic cash transfer system, god bless LN. No further posts in this trash.

Are you (by any chance) going to leave Bitcointalk, then come back, then say you're leaving again, then come back again ad infinitum?
No! bitcointalk is not funded by your dad, I just got somewhat bad feeling about seeing so many dumb 'legendary' fucks in one thread trying to convince themselves how great is the shit they are eating, so I decided not to argue with such dick heads.

And who/what are you? Kinda buzzard?
 



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 18, 2018, 03:24:41 AM
Does anyone know of a node that will open a channel with you for no cost?

How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?

I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.

I mean excluding the transaction fee. This gets so abstract so fast but if I am thinking about it correctly, it should be possible for some charitable node to be willing to open a small channel with you in exchange for you paying the nodes transaction fee. That way you could pick up some coins from the faucet for just the price of a transaction fee. I don't think anything like this exists though. Which was my reason for questioning the usefulness of a lightning faucet.



Channel factories. Existing Lightning Network channels could be used for creating new channels without broadcasting anything to the rest of the Bitcoin network. Normally, a channel is opened to only one person. In channel factories we have multiple people forming a group. Group members maintain channels between themselves. More interested users = higher savings. If one of the participants is uncooperative, existing channels are not affected - new channels can't be created, though.

You can find more detailed description here (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/67158/what-are-channel-factories-and-how-do-they-work/67187).

 :o Good lord man. You are so knowledgeable and such an asset to this thread. How are you only a regular member? I'm going to give you a chunk of merit and it's not for this post specifically but because you need it more than others (being only member) while simultaneously deserving it more than many others.


From the paper Scalable Funding of Bitcoin Micropayment Channel Networks (https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7cba96/Scalable_Funding_Of_Blockchain_Micropayment_Networks%20(1).pdf)

Quote
We propose a new layer that sits in between the blockchain and the payment channels. The new layer addresses the scalability problem by enabling trust-less off-blockchain channel funding. It consists of shared accounts of groups of nodes that flexibly create oneto-one channels for the payment network. The new system allows rapid changes of the allocation of funds to channels and reduces the cost of opening new channels. Instead of one blockchain transaction per channel, each user only needs one transaction to enter a group of nodes – within the group the user can create arbitrary many channels. For a group of 20 users with 100 intra-group channels, the cost of the blockchain transactions is reduced by 90% compared to 100 regular micropayment channels opened on the blockchain. This can be increased further to 96% if Bitcoin introduces Schnorr signatures with signature aggregation.

This is amazing! Any idea if this has gone through peer review?


Ok so I finished reading Scalable Funding of Bitcoin Micropayment Channel Networks (https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7cba96/Scalable_Funding_Of_Blockchain_Micropayment_Networks%20(1).pdf) and yea it's super exciting. I'm not sure but maybe I see a mistaken assumption / attack vector.

Quote
There is no personal advantage in unilaterally closing a channel, as the only difference is that higher mining fees are paid for the increased blockchain space, thus everyone loses. A selfish user should always prefer a settlement solution in comparison to broadcasting the current path of the invalidation tree.

It's true that if I uncooperatively leave the channel factory I will lose more money than if I do so cooperatively. But so will everyone else. So in the narrowest sense it is in my self interest to close the channel cooperatively, but what if my motives are more complicated? Couldn't I, in theory, for the cost of X dollar to myself, remove 99*X total dollars from each of my channel factory peers? Maybe causing others to lose 99 times as much wealth as myself is worth sacrificing some of my own wealth.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on July 18, 2018, 05:53:25 AM


WTF, We are not trying to destroy Bitcoin, we are just discussing the Pro's and Con's of the technology and how to utilize it in the best manner to get the most out of it. I am saying, that the Lightning Network developers should consider defining, what a micro payment should be to utilize the system to it's full potential.

The parameters that are used now, is just temporary?

Yeah, you're already done with destroying bitcoin, I get it.  ;)

Bitcoin is not an infrastructure, it is the system, remember? Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin,

Ruining it how? Bitcoin is an open system that is open for developers to build tools on top of it. The Lightning Network is one such tool.

Quote
turning it to something it was not meant to be.

Is that your argument? Hahaha.

You need to make a transaction onchain to open a Lightning channel, technically it is still functioning as it was meant to be.
And it is yours? hahaha

No, I learned it from "him".

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUk_lDEWAAA29Id.jpg

It is his one and true "vision". Hahaha.

Quote
Quote

Quote
For years, teaching noobs about bitcoin, I've been  used to begin with telling them the Internet story and how its decentralized nature is hided from them by centralized services on top of it. Now what do I have tell to them? Like "Hey, Bitcoin is decentralized, don't worry, it is the fault of second layer protocols that you are being spied and censored"?

Post your credentials, and who are you if you stand by that claim of authority.
This has nothing to do with my credentials. I don't need any kind of authority and didn't claim it. I'm telling a simple story about how a decentralized infrastructure like tcp/ip turned to be hidden by centralized, second layer protocols and you don't understand a word of mine.

I'm not talking about LN, I'm against any second layer protocol on bitcoin, I maintain that bitcoin IS NOT an infrastructure it is a complete system, it should be, it is meant to be.

Off-chain/second layer solutions of any kind, by any name are just a statement of failure for bitcoin.

For a person that says that he "does not" need any authority, you are speaking as if you are an "authority". Why should we listen to you with that attitude?

Quote
You guys are hypocrites, little, sneaky hypocrites. Instead of focusing on bitcoin as a system, an electronic P2P cash system, you are giving up with it and are rushing to LN as the solution, the shelter.

Then if someone takes the other side of the debate and challenges you, they are hypocrites?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Kakmakr on July 18, 2018, 06:22:04 AM

Anyway, I leave you guys, with your 'high level' experience with an electronic cash transfer system, god bless LN. No further posts in this trash.

Are you (by any chance) going to leave Bitcointalk, then come back, then say you're leaving again, then come back again ad infinitum?
No! bitcointalk is not funded by your dad, I just got somewhat bad feeling about seeing so many dumb 'legendary' fucks in one thread trying to convince themselves how great is the shit they are eating, so I decided not to argue with such dick heads.

And who/what are you? Kinda buzzard?

Let's leave rank out of this for a moment, because I think it is irrelevant to this discussion. Let's get back to the topic and what you think the LN is. In my view, the LN network solves a part of the scaling problems, by taking some of the micro transactions and placing them off-chain.

People are not forced to do all their transactions off-chain, they are just encouraged to take their micro transactions off-chain, because it is faster and cheaper to do that on a second layer that are focussed on that.

Everyone knows "Block size" increases is one of the most ineffective ways to scale a network, so that is not even considered as a possible solution. <That will eventually end up in centralization of the mining scene>

Give us a short explanation of your solution and let's debate this as responsible grownups. This name calling and swearing is so juvenile.  ;)

Edit : I bumped into your thread dedicated to your idea and it looks interesting - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4438334.0


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on July 18, 2018, 10:14:15 AM


Let's leave rank out of this for a moment, because I think it is irrelevant to this discussion. Let's get back to the topic and what you think the LN is. In my view, the LN network solves a part of the scaling problems, by taking some of the micro transactions and placing them off-chain.
Ok, just for you  ;)
LN, as a second layer protocol is suspected to centralization as it has been extensively discussed up-thread and plus a very primitive axiom I believe in: Any second layer protocol on top of bitcoin is vulnerable to centralization, no matter what.

I believe bitcoin is the ultimate and the state of the art decentralized system and as I'm used to emphasis and argue, and have tried to prove regularly, bitcoin's  current situation with pools and ASICs is not inherent and MUST be resolved by means of an evolutionary approach.

Any utility, UI, browser, navigator, analyser, ... that uses bitcoin protocol to lubricate user interaction with the system, remains decentralized as long as it has not wrapped it in a new protocol and abstracted users from the actual system.

Although, Bitcoin is open  and it is definitively any developper's right to invent such protocols/abstraction layers, we should be aware of the implications and threats involved and by no means such a protocol deserves to be advertised as a solution to scaling problem in bitcoin.

For instance, I can trivially design and implement a protocol for traditional banks to keep track of bitcoin deposits of their customers, providing very fast and 'secure' transaction processing utilities for in-bound transaction processing plus a simple clearance system for inter-bank/out-band transactions.
Obviously it would project parts of transaction burden off the blockchain, but do I deserve any  merits? Is it wise to consider my system as an scalability solution for bitcoin?

Right now we have centralized exchanges that transact billions of dollars a day without any overhead for bitcoin network, are they parts of a scalability solution?
They are mostly dangerous wild scammers. Bittrex as one of the biggest ones, few months ago, deliberately seized and scammed millions of dollars worth of user deposits.

My other concern here is the sole protocol stacking approach. A protocol above bitcoin protocol is evil, imo. People are joining bitcoin because of its beauty and its transparency, such abstractions and wrappings, alienates people from the system.

Quote
People are not forced to do all their transactions off-chain, they are just encouraged to take their micro transactions off-chain, because it is faster and cheaper to do that on a second layer that are focussed on that.
It is just the same as forcing people to do something, making their life a misery and giving them just one option to exit, your favorite one.

Core guys are biased toward LN. Right? It is wrong from the beginning. A 'core' developer should take care of the core protocol instead of commercializing a second layer protocol, shouldn't s/he?
I mean, you just start asking them about sca... and observe that they have already pointed to LN for scalability. So, this is it. It is their ultimate scaling solution that users have no choice other than to adopt.


Quote
Everyone knows "Block size" increases is one of the most ineffective ways to scale a network, so that is not even considered as a possible solution. <That will eventually end up in centralization of the mining scene>
Wrong! Block size debate is not over, I've showed it in other thread how poor is reasonings behind Core's weird approach to this debate. Mining scene is already centralized by pools and even a 100 times increase in block weight won't change the scene in this regard a bit!
I've suggested a block time decrease earlier as a better version than block size increase, tho.

Reducing block time is a complementary cure for on-chain scalability and should be considered a serious part of any improvement for bitcoin because it has a similar effect on reducing pooling pressure and centralization problems involved.

Quote

Give us a short explanation of your solution and let's debate this as responsible grownups. This name calling and swearing is so juvenile.  ;)

Edit : I bumped into your thread dedicated to your idea and it looks interesting - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4438334.0
Outlines of my solution:

  • 1- Adopting a Proof of Collaborative Work algorithm, eliminating pools
  • 2- Reducing block time to help the above de-pooling agenda
  • 3- Revising transaction format to make it more smart and compact
  • 4- Making room in blocks/transactions for low level support of sharding strategies

Parts of this solution has already been published in the topic you provided a link for, others are spontaneously discussed in other topics.
Note that eliminating pools is the most critical and urgent step to make sharding as an ultimate scalability solution, feasible.

For now, I'm integrating the most important parts in the second version of my PoCW proposal, due to be published in few days.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 18, 2018, 04:58:25 PM
I read through that. All that was missing is "How do I set up a channel-factory ?"

It's not yet available. It is one of the planned features but as you can see it might have a huge impact on the network once it becomes available in the most popular implementations. Take a look at this article (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/future-bitcoin-what-lightning-could-look/). There is some useful information about the future possible upgrades of the Lightning Network.

I mean excluding the transaction fee. This gets so abstract so fast but if I am thinking about it correctly, it should be possible for some charitable node to be willing to open a small channel with you in exchange for you paying the nodes transaction fee. That way you could pick up some coins from the faucet for just the price of a transaction fee. I don't think anything like this exists though. Which was my reason for questioning the usefulness of a lightning faucet.

Nobody can pay a transaction fee for you if you are opening the channel, but you can get a refund later. Lightning faucet (https://www.coinpanic.com/Lightning/CommunityJar) is quite useful for new users which want to test if their wallet is working properly. Usually, receiving funds causes more problems (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4666405.0).

Couldn't I, in theory, for the cost of X dollar to myself, remove 99*X total dollars from each of my channel factory peers? Maybe causing others to lose 99 times as much wealth as myself is worth sacrificing some of my own wealth.

Wouldn't the rest of participants simply broadcast a penalty transaction in such case?

You are so knowledgeable and such an asset to this thread. How are you only a regular member? I'm going to give you a chunk of merit and it's not for this post specifically but because you need it more than others (being only member) while simultaneously deserving it more than many others.

Thanks for that, I have just ranked up :) I really appreciate it. I used to read a lot about the Lightning Network a few months ago and I plan setting up my own node on a Raspberry Pi in the future.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 18, 2018, 07:51:50 PM
Quote
   "day_fee_sum": "0",
    "week_fee_sum": "0",
    "month_fee_sum": "0"

I guess it's going to take some time getting established ? Feereport is zeroed after twenty four hours. Have opened over fifty decently funded channels.

This is normal ?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 18, 2018, 08:04:30 PM
Quote
   "day_fee_sum": "0",
    "week_fee_sum": "0",
    "month_fee_sum": "0"

I guess it's going to take some time getting established ? Feereport is zeroed after twenty four hours. Have opened over fifty decently funded channels.

This is normal ?

Yes, it will take some time before you start earning from routing fees. Note that wallets will prefer the shortest and the cheapest route. At the beginning, this guy (https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/1013836071237537797) earned only $0.01 after one month! In the comments someone pointed out that a lot of people connect to the ACINQ node because it's the default one in Eclair (Android). To how big nodes are you connected to?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 18, 2018, 08:56:24 PM
Wouldn't the rest of participants simply broadcast a penalty transaction in such case?

That's how I imagined this problem would be dealt with I just didn't see any mention of dealing with it this way in the paper.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 18, 2018, 10:07:36 PM
To how big nodes are you connected to?

I have a link channel established with ACINQ. Have a link established to essentially the top 10-15 nodes by routing connections.

Let Autopilot manage the rest of the connections after connecting to the big ones manually.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on July 19, 2018, 06:43:15 AM


Let's leave rank out of this for a moment, because I think it is irrelevant to this discussion. Let's get back to the topic and what you think the LN is. In my view, the LN network solves a part of the scaling problems, by taking some of the micro transactions and placing them off-chain.
Ok, just for you  ;)
LN, as a second layer protocol is suspected to centralization as it has been extensively discussed up-thread and plus a very primitive axiom I believe in: Any second layer protocol on top of bitcoin is vulnerable to centralization, no matter what.

I believe bitcoin is the ultimate and the state of the art decentralized system and as I'm used to emphasis and argue, and have tried to prove regularly, bitcoin's  current situation with pools and ASICs is not inherent and MUST be resolved by means of an evolutionary approach.

Any utility, UI, browser, navigator, analyser, ... that uses bitcoin protocol to lubricate user interaction with the system, remains decentralized as long as it has not wrapped it in a new protocol and abstracted users from the actual system.

Although, Bitcoin is open  and it is definitively any developper's right to invent such protocols/abstraction layers, we should be aware of the implications and threats involved and by no means such a protocol deserves to be advertised as a solution to scaling problem in bitcoin.

For instance, I can trivially design and implement a protocol for traditional banks to keep track of bitcoin deposits of their customers, providing very fast and 'secure' transaction processing utilities for in-bound transaction processing plus a simple clearance system for inter-bank/out-band transactions.
Obviously it would project parts of transaction burden off the blockchain, but do I deserve any  merits? Is it wise to consider my system as an scalability solution for bitcoin?

Right now we have centralized exchanges that transact billions of dollars a day without any overhead for bitcoin network, are they parts of a scalability solution?
They are mostly dangerous wild scammers. Bittrex as one of the biggest ones, few months ago, deliberately seized and scammed millions of dollars worth of user deposits.

My other concern here is the sole protocol stacking approach. A protocol above bitcoin protocol is evil, imo. People are joining bitcoin because of its beauty and its transparency, such abstractions and wrappings, alienates people from the system.

You are making a debate just to make a debate. You can still use Bitcoin onchain without problems if you want to. But you should not criticize developers if they want to make tools that people might use.

Quote
Quote
People are not forced to do all their transactions off-chain, they are just encouraged to take their micro transactions off-chain, because it is faster and cheaper to do that on a second layer that are focussed on that.
It is just the same as forcing people to do something, making their life a misery and giving them just one option to exit, your favorite one.

No one is forcing you, and how would it give them misery? Lightning will also make transactions cheaper onchain if they do not want to use Lightning.

Quote
Quote
Everyone knows "Block size" increases is one of the most ineffective ways to scale a network, so that is not even considered as a possible solution. <That will eventually end up in centralization of the mining scene>
Wrong! Block size debate is not over,

It will be over. Let us observe Ethereum and make that our case study. Give it 10 years. Bitcoin Cash will also follow the same path. If it can increase its transactions per block more than Dogecoin. Hahaha.

Quote
Quote


Make a BIP. The problem in this forum is there are sometimes "very smart" people, but truly they have their own agenda.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 19, 2018, 05:52:50 PM
Shitcoin.com's node capacity (https://1ml.com/node/036b32ac6acf6d178f47c2139b7327ab85bd3d5f5c40681a9a48109ea21f53e1e5) seems to be constantly growing. It has already surpassed 40 BTC.

I have a link channel established with ACINQ. Have a link established to essentially the top 10-15 nodes by routing connections.

Could you let us know if anything has changed after one month? What implementation are you using?

If anyone is interested in setting up a node on a Raspberry Pi then RaspiBlitz (https://github.com/rootzoll/raspiblitz) is now available on github. It makes the whole process easier and it also comes with a nice LCD feature.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on July 19, 2018, 07:46:45 PM
You are making a debate just to make a debate. You can still use Bitcoin onchain without problems if you want to. But you should not criticize developers if they want to make tools that people might use.

Quote
Quote
People are not forced to do all their transactions off-chain, they are just encouraged to take their micro transactions off-chain, because it is faster and cheaper to do that on a second layer that are focussed on that.
It is just the same as forcing people to do something, making their life a misery and giving them just one option to exit, your favorite one.

No one is forcing you, and how would it give them misery? Lightning will also make transactions cheaper onchain if they do not want to use Lightning.
First of all, I'm just curious, why should you accuse me of debating just for having a debate? Isn't it kinda personal attack?
A gentleman asked me to express my ideas and i did so, what's wrong here?

Secondly, you have heard about incentives and how people follow them. Right? How don't you understand my argument here?

When you offer scalability off-chain and do nothing about it on-chain, you are forcing people to use the only economic option you have left them with.

I have explicitly specified that it is a right for any developer or company to use bitcoin api for developing second layer protocols or services of any kind, but it is not Core's right to be biased toward them or project the problems like scalability to them.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Everyone knows "Block size" increases is one of the most ineffective ways to scale a network, so that is not even considered as a possible solution. <That will eventually end up in centralization of the mining scene>
Wrong! Block size debate is not over,

It will be over. Let us observe Ethereum and make that our case study. Give it 10 years. Bitcoin Cash will also follow the same path. If it can increase its transactions per block more than Dogecoin. Hahaha.
So, it is not over and we are allowed to have our ideas and suggest our improvements but you think a decade later we will be proved wrong, and sticking with magical 1 MB limit will be proved right.

Ok. See you 2028.  ;)



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 20, 2018, 12:54:15 AM
Using the official lnd / lncli from Github.

Anyone screw around with fees ?

For example, the defaults are base_fee_msat 1000 and fee_rate of 1

$lncli updatechanpolicy --base_fee_msat 1000 --fee_rate 0.9

I suck at this math thing, but I'm thinking changing the fee rate from 1 to 0.9 makes routing through me cheaper ?

Or more expensive ?

The fee rate used when forwarding payments on our channels. The total fee charged is basefee + (amount * feerate / 1000000), where amount is the forwarded amount. (default: 1)

Got my lnd.conf set up like this at the moment for the Bitcoin config.

I'll certainly report back after a month. So far haven't routed a single satoshi :(

[Bitcoin]
bitcoin.active=1
bitcoin.basefee=1000
bitcoin.feerate=0.9
bitcoin.minhtlc=1000
bitcoin.timelockdelta=144




Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on July 20, 2018, 05:27:04 AM
You are making a debate just to make a debate. You can still use Bitcoin onchain without problems if you want to. But you should not criticize developers if they want to make tools that people might use.

Quote
Quote
People are not forced to do all their transactions off-chain, they are just encouraged to take their micro transactions off-chain, because it is faster and cheaper to do that on a second layer that are focussed on that.
It is just the same as forcing people to do something, making their life a misery and giving them just one option to exit, your favorite one.

No one is forcing you, and how would it give them misery? Lightning will also make transactions cheaper onchain if they do not want to use Lightning.
First of all, I'm just curious, why should you accuse me of debating just for having a debate? Isn't it kinda personal attack?
A gentleman asked me to express my ideas and i did so, what's wrong here?

No because you are biased against the Core developers. It is one thing to question or criticize, but you are imposing your own ideas as "right", and the people against you as "wrong".

Quote
Secondly, you have heard about incentives and how people follow them. Right? How don't you understand my argument here?

When you offer scalability off-chain and do nothing about it on-chain, you are forcing people to use the only economic option you have left them with.

Forcing? You can choose to use onchain transactions anytime you want. Plus offchain transactions really help free some space for your onchain transactions.

Quote
I have explicitly specified that it is a right for any developer or company to use bitcoin api for developing second layer protocols or services of any kind, but it is not Core's right to be biased toward them or project the problems like scalability to them.

The Core developers are free to choose which solutions are the best for the long term feasibility of the network.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Everyone knows "Block size" increases is one of the most ineffective ways to scale a network, so that is not even considered as a possible solution. <That will eventually end up in centralization of the mining scene>
Wrong! Block size debate is not over,

It will be over. Let us observe Ethereum and make that our case study. Give it 10 years. Bitcoin Cash will also follow the same path. If it can increase its transactions per block more than Dogecoin. Hahaha.
So, it is not over and we are allowed to have our ideas and suggest our improvements but you think a decade later we will be proved wrong, and sticking with magical 1 MB limit will be proved right.

Ok. See you 2028.  ;)



See you. 8)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiThzqFXcAAOKS7?format=jpg


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 20, 2018, 11:00:37 AM
$lncli updatechanpolicy --base_fee_msat 1000 --fee_rate 0.9

I suck at this math thing, but I'm thinking changing the fee rate from 1 to 0.9 makes routing through me cheaper ?

Or more expensive ?

The fee rate used when forwarding payments on our channels. The total fee charged is basefee + (amount * feerate / 1000000), where amount is the forwarded amount. (default: 1)


The lower the fee rate, the lower routing fees people will have to pay. It might actually encourage wallets to choose your node.

Yesterday, I tried Lightning Spin (https://www.lightningspin.com/) because one user has a problem with it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4666405.0) and I was surprised. I haven't used my Eclair wallet for some time. I had to wait roughly 1 minute and I haven't paid any routing fees!

https://i.imgur.com/N3erIlg.jpg


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 21, 2018, 01:04:12 AM
FWIW, changed my lnd.conf to leave feerate at the default of 1, and am instead playing with the "base_fee_msat" (bitcoin.basefee) value.

The explorer at 1ML.com does not properly display feerates below 1 (0.9 turns into 900,000 mil sat), so I think I screwed something up there or maybe they are screwed up ? Whatever. I don't know.

Anyway, adjusted existing channels to;

$lncli updatechanpolicy --base_fee_msat 950 --fee_rate 0.000001 --time_lock_delta 144

Frustrating that fee_rate is treated differently on the command line vs lnd.conf.

The default feerate is 1 in the config, and gets translated to 0.000001 somehow when the channel is opened.

Not sure what's going on there, but so far, I have made 2 satoshis in fees !

    "day_fee_sum": "2",
    "week_fee_sum": "2",
    "month_fee_sum": "2"


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: andrew1carlssin on July 21, 2018, 05:49:56 PM
I am playing with Discrete-Event Network Simulator NS3

http://arthurgervais.github.io/Bitcoin-Simulator/index.html

the project is a bit in the limbo and I don't think is up to date ...
while reading the models used I was wondering what parameters should I include to reflect how long a connection must be on ..
https://github.com/arthurgervais/Bitcoin-Simulator/tree/master/src/applications/model

"Problem with nLockTime is that it's hard to broadcast these transactions, so you'd have to leave your Bitcoin node running"..
-Sjors at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8431

... my general question is regards to a connection time and new routing path ...



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 21, 2018, 06:50:28 PM
Quote
"Problem with nLockTime is that it's hard to broadcast these transactions, so you'd have to leave your Bitcoin node running"..
-Sjors at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8431

Should be able to drop your HTLC to a much lower value, like 3-4 hours instead of 24 hours.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on July 23, 2018, 05:48:26 AM
What are the latest updates on Andreas Brekken's node? I heard that he was only earning a few cents from it even though he owns half the liquidity in the LN.

Plus where are the attacks on Blockstream and the conspiracy that they developed Lightning to "make money on fees"? Didn't Blockstream say that fees would be unfairly cheap? 8)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 23, 2018, 07:58:58 AM
What are the latest updates on Andreas Brekken's node? I heard that he was only earning a few cents from it even though he owns half the liquidity in the LN.

I have found an interesting article (https://medium.com/@timevalueofbtc/observations-from-alexbosworths-tweet-on-fees-e9b0be1fda86) whose aim is to show that capital is not the only factor when it comes to making money from the Lightning Network fees.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*XvZiNHUZv8UwLGqdtgvDfQ.png

Comparison between Andreas Brekken's and Alex Bosworth's nodes. Fees = week_fee_sum. Source (https://medium.com/@timevalueofbtc/observations-from-alexbosworths-tweet-on-fees-e9b0be1fda86)

Andreas' node's (https://1ml.com/node/036b32ac6acf6d178f47c2139b7327ab85bd3d5f5c40681a9a48109ea21f53e1e5/history) capacity has been stuck at 43 BTC for a few days now. We should give him a few weeks to collect more accurate data.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on July 24, 2018, 05:55:11 AM
That debunks the Lightning critics' "conspiracy theory" that Blockstream wanted an off-chain layer to compete with the miners in collecting fees.

Watch them criticize it again by propagandizing that "running a Lightning node should be incentivized".


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on July 24, 2018, 09:27:04 AM
That debunks the Lightning critics' "conspiracy theory" that Blockstream wanted an off-chain layer to compete with the miners in collecting fees.

Quite alot of the 7829 satoshis here is profit, assuming that the Bosworth node opened the minimum number of channels to host 1.01351351 BTC of liquidity (i.e. each channel had the maximum 0.16777216 BTC per channel). If the original outputs used to open the channels were segwit outputs, and if the fees were rock bottom (that part is very likely), then profits are even more likely.

Pennies of profit though, lol!! (but still better than nothing for running a full-node, which is the status quo)


(note that it's impossible to have a conspiracy where the facts are publicly available, conspiracies are secret by definition. Labelling Lightning critics "conspiracy theorists" actually therefore makes you look uneducated)

Watch them criticize it again by propagandizing that "running a Lightning node should be incentivized".

Indeed, it's very telling how much effort they put into trash talking in comparison to how much they want to add supporting voices to alternative ideas to improve cryptocurrencies.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 24, 2018, 04:12:31 PM
Indeed, it's very telling how much effort they put into trash talking in comparison to how much they want to add supporting voices to alternative ideas to improve cryptocurrencies.

This, exactly this, was my problem with Shelby lately.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: andrew1carlssin on July 24, 2018, 06:27:49 PM
What are the latest updates on Andreas Brekken's node? I heard that he was only earning a few cents from it even though he owns half the liquidity in the LN.

I have found an interesting article (https://medium.com/@timevalueofbtc/observations-from-alexbosworths-tweet-on-fees-e9b0be1fda86) whose aim is to show that capital is not the only factor when it comes to making money from the Lightning Network fees.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*XvZiNHUZv8UwLGqdtgvDfQ.png

Comparison between Andreas Brekken's and Alex Bosworth's nodes. Fees = week_fee_sum. Source (https://medium.com/@timevalueofbtc/observations-from-alexbosworths-tweet-on-fees-e9b0be1fda86)

Andreas' node's (https://1ml.com/node/036b32ac6acf6d178f47c2139b7327ab85bd3d5f5c40681a9a48109ea21f53e1e5/history) capacity has been stuck at 43 BTC for a few days now. We should give him a few weeks to collect more accurate data.

I was thinking about science question ...

"Why is it easier to pull a body than to push it?"


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on July 25, 2018, 05:21:03 AM
That debunks the Lightning critics' "conspiracy theory" that Blockstream wanted an off-chain layer to compete with the miners in collecting fees.

Quite alot of the 7829 satoshis here is profit, assuming that the Bosworth node opened the minimum number of channels to host 1.01351351 BTC of liquidity (i.e. each channel had the maximum 0.16777216 BTC per channel). If the original outputs used to open the channels were segwit outputs, and if the fees were rock bottom (that part is very likely), then profits are even more likely.

Pennies of profit though, lol!! (but still better than nothing for running a full-node, which is the status quo)


(note that it's impossible to have a conspiracy where the facts are publicly available, conspiracies are secret by definition. Labelling Lightning critics "conspiracy theorists" actually therefore makes you look uneducated)

But I am uneducated. No offense taken. Hahaha.

I said "conspiracy theory" from a point of view that big blockers having been saying lies on the Core developers want small blocks because "words", that Blockstream is backed by the Bilderberg group, the Lightning Network, before it went online, they said it was developed for the bankers to centralize Bitcoin, etc.

Quote
Watch them criticize it again by propagandizing that "running a Lightning node should be incentivized".

Indeed, it's very telling how much effort they put into trash talking in comparison to how much they want to add supporting voices to alternative ideas to improve cryptocurrencies.

Zero confirmation is one. But what they cannot do with that is, https://satoshis.place/ 8)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 25, 2018, 07:06:17 PM
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?

I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.

this is logical idea!?

You have to make an on chain transaction in order to open a LN channel.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 25, 2018, 08:04:28 PM
You have to make an on chain transaction in order to open a LN channel.

Don't forget about channel factories which I described in this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4638321.msg42378881#msg42378881). This feature is still not available but it's worth bringing up since it might encourage more people to open new channels.

My channel was closed by the peer (https://1ml.com/node/02ad6fb8d693dc1e4569bcedefadf5f72a931ae027dc0f0c544b34c1c6f3b9a02b) for no reason and it looks like I'm not the only one. I decided to open a channel with another node.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 25, 2018, 09:42:16 PM
You have to make an on chain transaction in order to open a LN channel.

Don't forget about channel factories which I described in this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4638321.msg42378881#msg42378881). This feature is still not available but it's worth bringing up since it might encourage more people to open new channels.

My channel was closed by the peer (https://1ml.com/node/02ad6fb8d693dc1e4569bcedefadf5f72a931ae027dc0f0c544b34c1c6f3b9a02b) for no reason and it looks like I'm not the only one. I decided to open a channel with another node.

Channel factory still requires the use of an on chain transaction to get into the factory. So for the purposes of his question, he can't get onto lightning for free even with channel factory tech.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 25, 2018, 10:14:46 PM
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
this is logical idea!?

Deja vu.

Does anyone know of a node that will open a channel with you for no cost?
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 25, 2018, 10:22:26 PM
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
this is logical idea!?

Deja vu.

Does anyone know of a node that will open a channel with you for no cost?
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.

Hey now. My question was different. I didn't word it that well but really I just wanted to know if there were any free services that would open a channel out so that one could start receiving funds. I didn't mean without having to pay for blockchain transaction fees. Just that maybe a service that was free.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on July 26, 2018, 05:53:43 AM
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.
this is logical idea!?

Deja vu.

Does anyone know of a node that will open a channel with you for no cost?
How is it possible to open a channel with no cost ?
I thought there was a cost to checkpoint the channel-open with the BTC blockchain.

Hey now. My question was different. I didn't word it that well but really I just wanted to know if there were any free services that would open a channel out so that one could start receiving funds. I didn't mean without having to pay for blockchain transaction fees. Just that maybe a service that was free.

What might happen would be "Lightning payment services" built on top of Lightning. This was discussed before, with some Lightning critics calling out that "Lightning will be a fractional reserve or MtGox2", but what they really was saying was the services on top of Lightning could be.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 26, 2018, 02:02:09 PM
Day Twelve. Total node capacity over 1BTC. Average channel capacity approximately 0.01 BTC.
   
    "day_fee_sum": "0",
    "week_fee_sum": "8",
    "month_fee_sum": "8"
---
    "num_pending_channels": 2,
    "num_active_channels": 93,
    "num_peers": 97,


Hey now. My question was different.

Nothing against you, friend. Was just curious why the poster was regurgitating my question. Odd.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 26, 2018, 04:31:21 PM
Nothing against you, friend. Was just curious why the poster was regurgitating my question. Odd.

Oh. It is indeed. His English doesn't seem to be very good. Perhaps he thought that by copying you word for word he would nail the English a lot better than if he tried to write a similar question himself.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 27, 2018, 09:26:25 AM
https://1ml.com/node/036b32ac6acf6d178f47c2139b7327ab85bd3d5f5c40681a9a48109ea21f53e1e5/history

Interesting. shitcoin.com just closed all their channels. Removing 42 BTC of liquidity from the network.

EDIT:

Day Thirteen.

shitcoin.com's influence has been entirely removed from the network.

    "day_fee_sum": "3",
    "week_fee_sum": "10",
    "month_fee_sum": "12"
---
    "num_pending_channels": 1,
    "num_active_channels": 93,
    "num_peers": 99,


EDIT2: https://medium.com/andreas-tries-blockchain/bitcoin-lightning-network-4-what-happens-when-you-close-half-of-the-lightning-network-b25b330dfad2


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 28, 2018, 05:45:54 PM
Day Fourteen.

After trading Tweets with Alex Bosworth on Twitter, I reset my fees to default levels. It's important to charge enough fees to pay for channel rebalance operations in the future.

Autopilot was loaded with an additional 1BTC, and has been funding additional channels over the last 24 hours since shitcoin.com dropped out.

Average channel size is 0.01 BTC.

lnd.conf

[Bitcoin]
bitcoin.basefee=1000
bitcoin.feerate=10

---

    "day_fee_sum": "0",
    "week_fee_sum": "7",
    "month_fee_sum": "12"

---

    "num_pending_channels": 5,
    "num_active_channels": 170,
    "num_peers": 176,


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 28, 2018, 09:08:17 PM
It looks like Lightning Network suffers from another problem (https://medium.com/@robban_69827/lightning-network-routing-fud-and-zombies-776b8238e66b) - inactive nodes. According to this website (https://www.robtex.com/lightning/node/), there are almost 1700 zombie nodes out of 3000! Honestly, I haven't encountered any routing error related to this issue, yet. Many nodes are considered capable of routing payments while they are offline for a 3 month "maintenance". Developers should be able to solve this problem in the near future.

How does the error related to this issue look like? For example, Eclair Android wallet informs user that certain channel is currently not available.

Autopilot was loaded with an additional 1BTC, and has been funding additional channels over the last 24 hours since shitcoin.com dropped out.

Could you tell us how much you have spent so far on the transaction fees? Opening over 170 channels must have been expensive.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 29, 2018, 01:08:37 AM
Interesting. shitcoin.com just closed all their channels. Removing 42 BTC of liquidity from the network.

Confirmed inability to pay lightning.spin and this is the first time I have been unable.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 29, 2018, 01:09:31 AM
Could you tell us how much you have spent so far on the transaction fees? Opening over 170 channels must have been expensive.

I'm not sure how to find that information out :(

I know it's a non-trivial amount, and hoping I recover the channel open fees in a couple months at this rate  :-\

Interesting. shitcoin.com just closed all their channels. Removing 42 BTC of liquidity from the network.
Confirmed inability to pay lightning.spin and this is the first time I have been unable.

Curious. I have a 0.01 BTC route to lightningspin.com.

How much were you trying to spend ?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 29, 2018, 01:13:51 AM
Could you tell us how much you have spent so far on the transaction fees? Opening over 170 channels must have been expensive.

I'm not sure how to find that information out :(

I know it's a non-trivial amount, and hoping I recover the channel open fees in a couple months at this rate  :-\

Interesting. shitcoin.com just closed all their channels. Removing 42 BTC of liquidity from the network.
Confirmed inability to pay lightning.spin and this is the first time I have been unable.

Curious. I have a 0.01 BTC route to lightningspin.com.

How much were you trying to spend ?

1000 sats


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 29, 2018, 01:28:26 AM
1000 sats

Inexplicable. Plenty of routing info for that low of an amount.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 29, 2018, 01:31:11 AM
1000 sats

Inexplicable. Plenty of routing info for that low of an amount.

Can I try connecting to your node?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 29, 2018, 01:40:41 AM
Have you guys seen this service?

https://lightningconductor.net/channels

Quote
If you open a channel to: 03c436af41160a355fc1ed230a64f6a64bcbd2ae50f12171d1318f9782602be601@mainnet.lightningconductor.net:9735 with a size of 0.00250000 BTC or more we will open one back for 0.00250000 BTC.

Haven't tried it yet but it seems pretty cool.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: danda on July 29, 2018, 04:20:05 AM
I made a list of lightning nodes by address type, updated daily, here:

https://github.com/dan-da/lightning-nodes

handy for finding tor nodes, ipv6 nodes, etc.



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 29, 2018, 09:21:51 AM
https://medium.com/@robban_69827/lightning-network-routing-fud-and-zombies-776b8238e66b


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 29, 2018, 12:26:45 PM
https://medium.com/@robban_69827/lightning-network-routing-fud-and-zombies-776b8238e66b

I mentioned this issue yesterday ;)

It looks like Lightning Network suffers from another problem (https://medium.com/@robban_69827/lightning-network-routing-fud-and-zombies-776b8238e66b) - inactive nodes. According to this website (https://www.robtex.com/lightning/node/), there are almost 1700 zombie nodes out of 3000! Honestly, I haven't encountered any routing error related to this issue, yet. Many nodes are considered capable of routing payments while they are offline for a 3 month "maintenance". Developers should be able to solve this problem in the near future.

How does the error related to this issue look like? For example, Eclair Android wallet informs user that certain channel is currently not available.

Lightning Network is still in beta so no wonder why there are issues like that. Fortunately, it can be fixed and not everyone is affected.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 29, 2018, 01:31:46 PM
I mentioned this issue yesterday ;)

My bad. Sorry about that. Didn't see it buried in the hyperlink text, that I obviously did not click on and read  :-\

Morning of Day 15.

Autopilot kinda went nutty on me for a bit late last night but seemed to recover. Funded a couple more manual channels. Closed out two zombie nodes as per advice in BitCryptex's link.

Autopilot has now ended it's latest funding run and node is chugging along. Updated to latest LND via github repo last night.

Tried to work out some issues with Anon136 last night, not being able to get his eclair wallet to connect to my node, to no avail. Proper bits are being advertised on my end. Inexplicable.

Checked out some of the channel funding costs to establish all the routes I have created so far. I'm guestimating total channel fees thus far are approximately 90,000-100,000 sat.

Going to take quite some time to recover those fees.

    "day_fee_sum": "2",
    "week_fee_sum": "9",
    "month_fee_sum": "15"

---

    "num_pending_channels": 7,
    "num_active_channels": 175,
    "num_peers": 209,
    "version": "0.4.2-beta commit=92b0b10dc75de87be3a9f895c8dfc5a84a2aec7a"


EDIT: Installed ntop and starting to keep tabs on bandwidth for the bitcoind/lnd node.

  "version": 160100,
  "subversion": "/Satoshi:0.16.1/",
  "protocolversion": 70015,
  "localservices": "000000000000040d",
  "localrelay": true,
  "timeoffset": 0,
  "networkactive": true,
  "connections": 142


https://i.imgur.com/eXzy4qt.jpg


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on July 30, 2018, 06:00:58 AM
How bad were the effects of Andreas Brekken closing his channels? I suppose it was not that bad? There was almost nothing said about it on Twitter or on Reddit, maybe to his disappointment. Hahaha.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: abhutra on July 30, 2018, 07:21:03 AM

Just read this Blockstream blog, and I am excited to see growing research on scaling solution and how things would really different (read awesome) down the line.

eltoo: A Simplified Update Mechanism for Lightning and Off-Chain Contracts

https://blockstream.com/2018/04/30/eltoo-next-lightning.html

Would love to discuss more/ what do you guys think?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 30, 2018, 09:21:27 AM
How bad were the effects of Andreas Brekken closing his channels? I suppose it was not that bad? There was almost nothing said about it on Twitter or on Reddit, maybe to his disappointment. Hahaha.

A few people on the r/Bitcoin were complaining about unexpected closure of their channels. Some people started to experience problems with payments. See the quote below.

Interesting. shitcoin.com just closed all their channels. Removing 42 BTC of liquidity from the network.

Confirmed inability to pay lightning.spin and this is the first time I have been unable.

Surprisingly, most of the Lightning Network users were unaffected. If he had kept his node longer, he might have done more damage. None of my payments so far.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on July 30, 2018, 12:57:21 PM
Just read this Blockstream blog, and I am excited to see growing research on scaling solution and how things would really different (read awesome) down the line.

eltoo: A Simplified Update Mechanism for Lightning and Off-Chain Contracts

https://blockstream.com/2018/04/30/eltoo-next-lightning.html

Yeah, biggest thing to happen in Lightning development since channel factories.


This demonstrates:

1. Lightning isn't perfect as per the 2015 original specification
2. It can be improved, and the developers know what the weaknesses are and are thinking carefully how to redesign optimally

It will take time, but the end product should be easier to use than regular Bitcoin clients. And this will be huge for Bitcoin's competitiveness as a currency, it could be like using gold with a debit card, where the actual bullion is under the complete control of the individual.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on July 30, 2018, 09:08:07 PM
@Xian01 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=58223) I have found a website (https://www.moneni.com/nodematch) which might be better than the in-built autopilot. This service will take into account your existing connections and suggest new ones for better connectivity. It should result in more payments routed by you. Enter your nodeid to see the results.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on July 30, 2018, 11:04:28 PM
Just read this Blockstream blog, and I am excited to see growing research on scaling solution and how things would really different (read awesome) down the line.

eltoo: A Simplified Update Mechanism for Lightning and Off-Chain Contracts

https://blockstream.com/2018/04/30/eltoo-next-lightning.html

Yeah, biggest thing to happen in Lightning development since channel factories.


This demonstrates:

1. Lightning isn't perfect as per the 2015 original specification
2. It can be improved, and the developers know what the weaknesses are and are thinking carefully how to redesign optimally

It will take time, but the end product should be easier to use than regular Bitcoin clients. And this will be huge for Bitcoin's competitiveness as a currency, it could be like using gold with a debit card, where the actual bullion is under the complete control of the individual.

As I'm not a developer, in layman's terms, how complicated a task is it to mash all the different Lightning ideas together and keep it all compatible, over multiple dev teams with their own implementations?  We've got Channel Factories, Eltoo, Atomic Multi-Path, Atomic Swaps, Watchtowers and probably a few other interesting ideas besides.  I'm amazed by all the ingenuity on display with this stuff.  The only small downside is that every new idea will probably mean it takes that little bit longer to reach the stage where it's all seamlessly integrated and relatively user-friendly.  A price worth paying, for sure, though.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on July 31, 2018, 12:00:45 AM
This demonstrates:

1. Lightning isn't perfect as per the 2015 original specification
2. It can be improved, and the developers know what the weaknesses are and are thinking carefully how to redesign optimally

It will take time, but the end product should be easier to use than regular Bitcoin clients. And this will be huge for Bitcoin's competitiveness as a currency, it could be like using gold with a debit card, where the actual bullion is under the complete control of the individual.

I think we all know that this person did not pull enough liquidity from the system to make it technically impossible to route payments that were not marginally large. It's just that there wasn't sufficient liquidity to overcome the shortcomings of imperfect routing. I'm skeptical that full client side routing may end up not being practical. Perhaps a hybrid system where a satisfactory level of privacy is achieved through onion routing while other hops in the routing are a collaborative effort? Not sure, just thinking out loud.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on July 31, 2018, 12:44:55 PM
As I'm not a developer, in layman's terms, how complicated a task is it to mash all the different Lightning ideas together and keep it all compatible, over multiple dev teams with their own implementations?  

It certainly adds extra work to the development. Seeing as network consensus is a multi-lateral model for lightning (only individual payment paths need a sequence of consensus, the failure of which isn't critical to the overall network), there is no reference implementation like with bitcoin itself, and so lightning development resembles any other protocol development far more than bitcoin does. This makes sense overall; clightning appears to be focusing on the embedded and webstore/server markets (it uses the C language, and so it can be compiled for just about any platform), whereas lnd is targetting mobile, server and desktop (lnd is using rust, which I would assume is unlikely to work well for super simple embedded Point of Sale devices for instance), or Eclair which is mobile only.

This makes sense as a development model in lightning's case, however messy the interoperability issues are. The nuance is that the list of new ideas you mention are originating from the different teams, and they do not necessitate universal implementation. If lnd doesn't want to implement eltoo, there is no problem at the protocol level, they can continue to use the punishment protocol instead. Vice versa if ACINQ (the Eclair team) decides against implementing channel factories, Eclair can still interface with the lightning network at the level of the 1.0 protocol. So once the wrinkles in 1.0 interoperability are ironed out, it will function as a stable base layer in it's own right. Swapping out components of the protocol for enhanced substitutes, or adding additional network layers (e.g. channel factories) shouldn't be too disruptive with a stable base protocol operating (it's very close already).


I think we all know that this person did not pull enough liquidity from the system to make it technically impossible to route payments that were not marginally large. It's just that there wasn't sufficient liquidity to overcome the shortcomings of imperfect routing. I'm skeptical that full client side routing may end up not being practical. Perhaps a hybrid system where a satisfactory level of privacy is achieved through onion routing while other hops in the routing are a collaborative effort? Not sure, just thinking out loud.

It was a little overhyped, the supposed attack withdrew much less than half the network liquidity. I think channel factories and/or cyclic node rebalancing techniques will cater for the liquidity of good actors on the network, and (yet another) proposed system for data authentication could be the building blocks to solve the bad actors problem (this would introduce rewards for serving reliable data of any type over lightning, which can be used to give nodes a routing score). There was a suggestion by the author that this could be used to simplify or remove the need for watchtowers altogether, which would be nice (I believe eltoo goes some way in that direction already)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on July 31, 2018, 02:40:57 PM
Day 17.

Nothing significant to report.

Lowered fees from default levels of 1000 / 10 to 975 / 5.

Total node liquidity provided approximately 2 BTC. Staying firm at committing to at least 0.01 BTC per established channel.

    "num_pending_channels": 1,
    "num_active_channels": 172,
    "num_peers": 176,

---

    "day_fee_sum": "0",
    "week_fee_sum": "8",
    "month_fee_sum": "15"

---

  "version": 160100,
  "subversion": "/Satoshi:0.16.1/",
  "protocolversion": 70015,
  "localservices": "000000000000040d",
  "localrelay": true,
  "timeoffset": 0,
  "networkactive": true,
  "connections": 150


https://i.imgur.com/MgCNC4u.jpg


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Zin-Zang on July 31, 2018, 11:27:47 PM
Question for anyone running a Lightning hub.

Currently transaction fess are so low , no one is making a profit and everyone is losing money.
When you add in your input costs such as maintaining a node and personal effort maintaining your node, you are at a monetary loss.

So how do you see yourself turning that into a profit.

Do you see yourself charging higher fees or do you expect the volume to increase to such a point it allows you to make a profit?

If so , please list your expected daily volume and price per transaction where you actually make a profit enough to exceed your input costs,
ie: maintain a node, electricity, internet bandwidth, and anything else required

Thanks.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on August 01, 2018, 12:09:51 AM
So how do you see yourself turning that into a profit.

Not in this for the profit at the moment.

It's just a really neato technology to help cultivate right now.

Sorta how like when I got into Bitcoin mining back in the day. I never imagined it would have paid off how it ultimately did. Was "operating at a loss" for years.

Same thing here.

In it for the technology and intellectual stimulation right now.

If it pays off, great. If not, no big loss, ultimately, but I had a lot of fun and learned a lot of new things in the process.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on August 01, 2018, 05:42:05 AM
But was the Lightning network really designed with having the nodes earn "profit"? Did the developers not say that Lightning will have "unfairly cheap fees"?

Why are the layered protocol deniers changing their debate from, "Lightning nodes are there to exploit users by charging high fees", to, "Why would anyone run a Lightning node if you can't earn enough from fees"?



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on August 01, 2018, 11:48:33 PM
But was the Lightning network really designed with having the nodes earn "profit"? Did the developers not say that Lightning will have "unfairly cheap fees"?

Nodes operated at a loss would depend upon charity and altruism in the community. I think it is reasonable to assume that nodes will only be run at a profit. But I think it is also correct to expect that routing will still be extremely cheap even if it is done at a price on the margin of satisfactory levels of profitability for node operators. Essentially you are just going to be paying somewhere between one and two hundred percent of the average cost of a node to a node operator divided by the number of transactions that he forwards. That should be minuscule. Something like 1/1,000th to 1/1,000,000th of the cost of operating a server.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Zin-Zang on August 02, 2018, 05:40:44 AM
But was the Lightning network really designed with having the nodes earn "profit"? Did the developers not say that Lightning will have "unfairly cheap fees"?

Nodes operated at a loss would depend upon charity and altruism in the community. I think it is reasonable to assume that nodes will only be run at a profit. But I think it is also correct to expect that routing will still be extremely cheap even if it is done at a price on the margin of satisfactory levels of profitability for node operators. Essentially you are just going to be paying somewhere between one and two hundred percent of the average cost of a node to a node operator divided by the number of transactions that he forwards. That should be minuscule. Something like 1/1,000th to 1/1,000,000th of the cost of operating a server.

To run what I consider a nice VPS is ~$60 per month.
So just to break even means for the VPS cost only, $60 /30 days = $2 per day
If I get
1000 transactions per day, meaning I have to charge $0.002 per transaction  (30000 transactions per month)
100 transactions per day, meaning I have to charge $0.02 per transaction   (3000 transactions per month)
10 transactions per day, meaning I have to charge $0.20 per transaction     (300 transactions per month)
1 transaction per day , meaning I have to charge $2 per transaction            (30 transactions per month)
1 transaction per every 5 days, meaning I have to charge $10 per transaction (6 transactions per month)

Looking at the above rates gives me a basis line for the competition of small hubs.

But let say I want to make a profit and am not working just to break even
To make a profit I charge based on the LN transaction volume , since small nodes can't go lower than breaking even
1000 transactions per day at $0.02 per transaction  (30000 transactions per month)
100 transactions per day at $0.20 per transaction (3000 transactions per month)
10 transactions per day at $2 per transaction (300 transactions per month)
The above all give me $20 per day or $600 per month or $7200 per year

$7200 is not really a high enough wage to support a family, still below the poverty line.

so to make a living wage in California  ;)
1000 transactions per day at $0.20 per transaction  (30000 transactions per month)
100 transactions per day at $2 per transaction (3000 transactions per month)  
10 transactions per day at $20 per transaction (300 transactions per month)

The above all give me $200 per day or $6000 per month or $72000 per year
LN could support someone quite nicely , but only at $2 per transaction and if they can get ~3000 transactions every month.

So from the above the people working for free with small hubs will
break even charging between $0.02 & $2 per transaction.
While Large Hubs with 1000 transaction per day
can charge $0.20 per transactions and make a living for their owner.

Even considering 3rd world people running LN nodes and being happy with the $7200 only per year due to exchange rates.
It means that once the people get tired of just working for free,
that the bare minimum fees per LN transaction will be between $0.20 & $2 per hub.

Not the super low costs that were predicted, and still higher than many altcoins, including litecoin onchain which was ~2 to 5 cents per transaction last I looked.

Now a Mega Hub /Bank
that process 1 million transactions per day at $0.20 each transaction would earn their corporation $200000 per day or $6 Million Dollars per month
(Most channels & Users would centralize to this Mega Hub as to avoid additional fees further choking out the smaller players.)

If you can not see than LN was designed to be Banking 2.0 after reading the above, you were not paying attention to who can really profit from it at lower fees.  :)

FYI:  https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-lightning-capacity-rises-68-in-1-month-progress-in-scaling-and-micropayments/
Quote
Eight months ago, the Bitcoin network was processing 500,000 transactions on a daily basis but recently,
the Bitcoin network has been settling less than 150,000 transactions per day.



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on August 02, 2018, 06:09:39 AM
But was the Lightning network really designed with having the nodes earn "profit"? Did the developers not say that Lightning will have "unfairly cheap fees"?
If you can not see than LN was designed to be Banking 2.0 after reading the above, you were not paying attention to who can really profit from it at lower fees.  :)

You assume that transactions would be priced like that. But how much are the Lightning nodes charging for fees right now? I believe lower than $0.01.

This is why this service is possible in the Lightning Network, https://satoshis.place/

Plus Lightning nodes compete for fees. If they want payments to be routed through them they should set a lower fee than average.

"Lightning Network is Banking 2.0" is nothing but propagnda. There is no fractional reserve in Lightning, and only the user controls his funds.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Zin-Zang on August 02, 2018, 06:30:23 AM
But was the Lightning network really designed with having the nodes earn "profit"? Did the developers not say that Lightning will have "unfairly cheap fees"?
If you can not see than LN was designed to be Banking 2.0 after reading the above, you were not paying attention to who can really profit from it at lower fees.  :)

You assume that transactions would be priced like that. But how much are the Lightning nodes charging for fees right now? I believe lower than $0.01.

This is why this service is possible in the Lightning Network, https://satoshis.place/

Plus Lightning nodes compete for fees. If they want payments to be routed through them they should set a lower fee than average.

"Lightning Network is Banking 2.0" is nothing but propagnda. There is no fractional reserve in Lightning, and only the user controls his funds.



It is not an assumption , it is a cost basis from the break even point of maintaining a $60 per month VPS.
Right now people are just doing it for Free and just losing money in the hope profit comes later.

People will only lose money giving you free transactions UNTIL they at least want to break even, and when they want a profit , the hub fees will go even higher.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Mega Hubs/Banks are the only ones that are going to make large profits from LN and centralized control of bitcoin while doing it.
(No different than Walmart bankrupting the Mom & Pop Stores by competing at a lower price margin and having a higher volume to still make a profit.)

Your lack of understanding , gets really old.
A small code change is all it takes to make 10 LN notes from 1 bitcoin, only a mutiplier in the program code.
LN is only a representation of a bitcoin, not the real bitcoin , as such code changes can easily multiply the representation.
Fractional Reserve is just a software update away.

Your belief that you control your funds is naive.
Broadcast an old transaction and the LN hub will seize your funds and give it to the counterparty and their is nothing you can do to stop it.
Get DDOS and be unable to broadcast the final transaction and have your counterparty broadcast the previous transaction and steal your funds.
The Fees the hubs take from you , you can't stop the hubs from getting their fees.
Close a channel and immediately use your funds , You can't do it because they are time locked and you do not have full control of your funds.*Until the Time Locks Expire.*

Go ask Franky1 to explain it to you for like the 100th time, he has more patience for stupid people than I do.   ;)



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on August 02, 2018, 06:49:05 PM
But was the Lightning network really designed with having the nodes earn "profit"? Did the developers not say that Lightning will have "unfairly cheap fees"?

Nodes operated at a loss would depend upon charity and altruism in the community. I think it is reasonable to assume that nodes will only be run at a profit. But I think it is also correct to expect that routing will still be extremely cheap even if it is done at a price on the margin of satisfactory levels of profitability for node operators. Essentially you are just going to be paying somewhere between one and two hundred percent of the average cost of a node to a node operator divided by the number of transactions that he forwards. That should be minuscule. Something like 1/1,000th to 1/1,000,000th of the cost of operating a server.
long post

A couple of mistakes in your assumptions I think. 1000 transactions a day would probably be way way under what is reasonable to expect for someone who is running nodes as a full time job. Alternatively it might be realistic for someone who is willing to, for the most part, set it and forget it.

Either way you had the completely wrong take away. What you want to do is roughly calculate how many transactions a 60 dollar per month server would be able to process in a month and divide the 60 dollars per month by that number then double it or something to allow for some profit. That number would be extremely small.

Also yes you are going to be able to get the lowest rates from major banking hubs obviously but that is an opt in sort of thing. You can choose not to route through jpmorgan if you wish or you can chose to save some sheckels and route through them. That is each individuals choice. This is not a centralized system. Everything about it is opt in.

And finally, for reasons laboriously discussed previously, a hundred times over, the actual damage that could be done by a bank that could operate at economies of scale like you are talking about is pretty small. They can't just make their own rules because they are big like they do in the legacy financial markets. This is the big insight that detractors seem to be lacking. About the worst thing they could do is pull their liquidity in a coordinated attack but it is reasonable to expect the network to heal from this quickly and almost organically.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: d5000 on August 02, 2018, 08:21:47 PM
eltoo: A Simplified Update Mechanism for Lightning and Off-Chain Contracts

https://blockstream.com/2018/04/30/eltoo-next-lightning.html

Would love to discuss more/ what do you guys think?
I have read the associated Reddit discussion (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/8g17vs/eltoo_a_simplified_update_mechanism_for_lightning/) and I still have a doubt about eltoo.

The question arose at Reddit, too: What could be done to prevent that scam hubs simply keep trying to broadcast old channel states? There is no penalty for that behavior at this protocol level, according to Christian Decker.

But how could a penalty be implemented on a "higher level", like Decker says in some moment in the discussion? I think a form of penalty is necessary, otherwise it will become a huge scamfest, or the system will depend excessively on watchtowers and other third parties. I'm afraid that in this case LN would be sort of losing its elegance.

I would be grateful for an example for a higher level penalty implementation understandable by someone who has no IT degree ;)

Decker posted this explanation at Reddit, but I need some clues still:
Quote
Re-introducing the asymmetry at a higher level allows us to select how much of the channel we'd like to set aside for a punishment for example. Have the reserve split out into a separate output of the settlement transaction and encumbering it with a shachain or elkrem preimage. This is similar to the current mechanism of ensuring that all parties have some skin in the game.

The second sentence - the core of his proposal - is difficult for me to understand. :-[


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on August 02, 2018, 09:07:07 PM
I would be grateful for an example for a higher level penalty implementation understandable by someone who has no IT degree ;)

Decker posted this explanation at Reddit, but I need some clues still:
Quote
Re-introducing the asymmetry at a higher level allows us to select how much of the channel we'd like to set aside for a punishment for example. Have the reserve split out into a separate output of the settlement transaction and encumbering it with a shachain or elkrem preimage. This is similar to the current mechanism of ensuring that all parties have some skin in the game.

The second sentence - the core of his proposal - is difficult for me to understand. :-[

Currently, the transaction which founds the channel contains only one output - a multi-signature address which is in control of both parties. The idea is to use only a part of the founding transaction as a punishment. The first transaction would contain two outputs - one with the funds used on the Lightning Network and the second released only if the other person attempts to cheat. Shachain or elkrem preimage make sure that the reserve isn't spent improperly. You can think of the reserve as a security deposit.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: d5000 on August 02, 2018, 09:27:53 PM
Currently, the transaction which founds the channel contains only one output - a multi-signature address which is in control of both parties. The idea is to use only a part of the founding transaction as a punishment. The first transaction would contain two outputs - one with the funds used on the Lightning Network and the second one released only if the other person attempts to cheat. Shachain or elkrem preimage make sure that the reserve isn't spent improperly. You can think of the reserve as a security deposit.
Thanks! However, if I understand it the right way, I have a problem with this approach: it would be needed to lock lots of funds in penalty outputs if LN sees mass adoption, as the "penalty output" should be big enough to prevent incentives to try it anyway, above all for "malevolent big hubs" which could tolerate a certain percentage of "failure" of the scam intents.

That could even be a problem for mass adoption: many "average Joes" could refuse to deposit more funds than those they're able to really spend in LN. The funds could be spent later, that's true - but that would need, afaik, a on-chain refunding.

I understood the discussion that this isn't the only concept they're thinking about, so maybe there is a better way to be found. Maybe LN-penalty can stay there as an alternative option.

Just out of curiosity: Someone knows why this mechanism called "eltoo"?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: gentlemand on August 02, 2018, 09:45:16 PM
Well, this thread is panning out pretty much how I expected. I still don't understand any of it.

I guess this is very similar to being here in the very early days of BTC when there was only one wallet that was pretty clunky and a small bunch of people feeling it all out. Looking forward to seeing how much slicker this all will become. For the masses, and me, to have any hope of using it it's going to have to be.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Zin-Zang on August 03, 2018, 01:29:56 AM
But was the Lightning network really designed with having the nodes earn "profit"? Did the developers not say that Lightning will have "unfairly cheap fees"?

Nodes operated at a loss would depend upon charity and altruism in the community. I think it is reasonable to assume that nodes will only be run at a profit. But I think it is also correct to expect that routing will still be extremely cheap even if it is done at a price on the margin of satisfactory levels of profitability for node operators. Essentially you are just going to be paying somewhere between one and two hundred percent of the average cost of a node to a node operator divided by the number of transactions that he forwards. That should be minuscule. Something like 1/1,000th to 1/1,000,000th of the cost of operating a server.
long post

lame post



If you had actually read my post , it lists the total monthly transactions required to the right.
You can divide by the monthly total transactions if you like, but the price per transaction will be the same.
1000 transactions per day at $0.02 per transaction (30000 transactions per month)
                   ie: $60/30000 =$0.02 per transaction
100 transactions per day at $0.20 per transaction  (3000 transactions per month)  
                   ie: $60/3000 =$0.20 per transaction
10 transactions per day at $2 per transaction         (300 transactions per month)
                   ie: $60/300 =$2 per transaction

As far as damage, I never claimed their would be damage only that the Banks would monopolize LN and their is nothing you can do to stop them.
Your thoughts that small players are going to be the main LN hubs is what is completely ludicrous.
LN will work as originally designed with the Banks running the show.




Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on August 03, 2018, 02:47:31 AM
As far as damage, I never claimed their would be damage only that the Banks would monopolize LN and their is nothing you can do to stop them.
Your thoughts that small players are going to be the main LN hubs is what is completely ludicrous.
LN will work as originally designed with the Banks running the show.

Here you go. You dig right down to your core mistake here. You just assert as if it is self evident that if the banks run the biggest nodes they will run the show. That doesn't follow at all. In fact it is unlikely that big banks will even bother trying to run big nodes precisely because, unlike the legacy financial system, running all of the biggest nodes doesn't really give them very much power.

You can't just assert that like its self evident. Lightning network doesn't work like the legacy financial system. You need to actually explain, on a mechanical level, the precise mechanism by which being big gives one the ability to "run the show".


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Zin-Zang on August 03, 2018, 02:55:37 AM
As far as damage, I never claimed their would be damage only that the Banks would monopolize LN and their is nothing you can do to stop them.
Your thoughts that small players are going to be the main LN hubs is what is completely ludicrous.
LN will work as originally designed with the Banks running the show.

Here you go. You dig right down to your core mistake here. You just assert as if it is self evident that if the banks run the biggest nodes they will run the show. That doesn't follow at all. In fact it is unlikely that big banks will even bother trying to run big nodes precisely because, unlike the legacy financial system, running all of the biggest nodes doesn't really give them very much power.

You can't just assert that like its self evident. Lightning network doesn't work like the legacy financial system. You need to actually explain, on a mechanical level, the precise mechanism by which being big gives one the ability to "run the show".


You assert that prices will be extremely low without proof, ie: showing no numbers to support your arguments
my assertions are based upon the history of bitcoin and the banking system, along with the walmart effect.
How many guys can mine bitcoin for $60 per month, small guys were pushed out years ago, it will be the same with LN.

I guess the part where a bank could make $6 million per month charging only $.20 per transaction was over your head.  :D


 


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on August 03, 2018, 06:25:47 AM
But was the Lightning network really designed with having the nodes earn "profit"? Did the developers not say that Lightning will have "unfairly cheap fees"?
If you can not see than LN was designed to be Banking 2.0 after reading the above, you were not paying attention to who can really profit from it at lower fees.  :)

You assume that transactions would be priced like that. But how much are the Lightning nodes charging for fees right now? I believe lower than $0.01.

This is why this service is possible in the Lightning Network, https://satoshis.place/

Plus Lightning nodes compete for fees. If they want payments to be routed through them they should set a lower fee than average.

"Lightning Network is Banking 2.0" is nothing but propagnda. There is no fractional reserve in Lightning, and only the user controls his funds.



It is not an assumption , it is a cost basis from the break even point of maintaining a $60 per month VPS.
Right now people are just doing it for Free and just losing money in the hope profit comes later.

It is an assumption until you run a Lightning node yourself and compute everything. But did you already not say that Lightning nodes do not earn enough from fees?

Quote
People will only lose money giving you free transactions UNTIL they at least want to break even, and when they want a profit , the hub fees will go even higher.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Mega Hubs/Banks are the only ones that are going to make large profits from LN and centralized control of bitcoin while doing it.
(No different than Walmart bankrupting the Mom & Pop Stores by competing at a lower price margin and having a higher volume to still make a profit.)

The same set up in Bitcoin now will happen in Lightning. Merchants will run them because it scales.

Quote
Your lack of understanding , gets really old.
A small code change is all it takes to make 10 LN notes from 1 bitcoin, only a mutiplier in the program code.
LN is only a representation of a bitcoin, not the real bitcoin , as such code changes can easily multiply the representation.
Fractional Reserve is just a software update away.

Then teach me, because you have said nothing that I can learn from. Everything is propaganda from the big blockers.

Quote
Your belief that you control your funds is naive.
Broadcast an old transaction and the LN hub will seize your funds and give it to the counterparty and their is nothing you can do to stop it.

You mean cheat in Lightning? Yes, there will be penalties if you cheat.

Quote
Get DDOS and be unable to broadcast the final transaction and have your counterparty broadcast the previous transaction and steal your funds.

Possible, good argument, I will read more on that.

Quote
The Fees the hubs take from you , you can't stop the hubs from getting their fees.
Close a channel and immediately use your funds , You can't do it because they are time locked and you do not have full control of your funds.*Until the Time Locks Expire.*

Wrong you can broadcast the latest state of your channel anytime. Did Andreas Brekken not close his channels but only having minor problems?

Quote
Go ask Franky1 to explain it to you for like the 100th time, he has more patience for stupid people than I do.   ;)

I am here to learn. I will continue debating with you until I am as smart as you. 8)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Zin-Zang on August 03, 2018, 12:34:03 PM
I am here to learn. I will continue debating with you until I am as smart as you. 8)

 :D

I can honestly say, Hell would literally freeze over before that happens.
But it is good to have goals.  :)


It is not an assumption , it is a cost basis from the break even point of maintaining a $60 per month VPS.
Right now people are just doing it for Free and just losing money in the hope profit comes later.

It is an assumption until you run a Lightning node yourself and compute everything. But did you already not say that Lightning nodes do not earn enough from fees?

Definition of the word : Assumption
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

I will replace the term Cost Basis with the Term Input Costs,
to see if you understand that better.

Definition of Input Cost:
Cost of direct material, direct labor, and other overhead items devoted to the production of a good or service.

LN hubs requires a computer & internet access, which no one can deny.
Therefore current prices of a decent VPS are ~$60 per month.
So that $60 is your minimum input cost.
(Notice the time to become proficient running a LN hub was not even included in the input costs.)

So calculating the break even point of what each LN transaction has to meet to match the input cost of $60 is pure math , not assumption.


You mean cheat in Lightning? Yes, there will be penalties if you cheat.

If someone can impose penalties and Take away your funds,
it directly means that you NEVER had Total Control as you like to keep asserting which is a false statement.

Example: In Onchain Bitcoin where you control your private keys,
No one can Take any funds from you unless you agree to send them the payment.
They can send you a bill, but they can't make you pay, it is your choice.

With LN Multi signature, the LN Hub can grant your funds to the counterparties at any time their rule system dictates without you having any ability at all to block it.
Not the total control myth , you keep propagating, the most you can truly say, is that you have shared control of the LN funds with the hub.


The Fees the hubs take from you , you can't stop the hubs from getting their fees.
Close a channel and immediately use your funds , You can't do it because they are time locked and you do not have full control of your funds.*Until the Time Locks Expire.*

Wrong you can broadcast the latest state of your channel anytime. Did Andreas Brekken not close his channels but only having minor problems?

https://medium.com/andreas-tries-blockchain/bitcoin-lightning-network-4-what-happens-when-you-close-half-of-the-lightning-network-b25b330dfad2
Quote
The remaining channels cannot close gracefully because the Lightning Node on the other side of the channel is offline.
I force close these channels using lncli closechannel --force.

Closing a channel using --force results in a unilateral close which makes the funds unavailable to me.
The amount of time the funds are locked up depends on the channel policy. This policy is negotiated when the channel opens.
Most channels will release the funds to me in between 1440 and 20180 minutes.

20180 minutes is ~ 2 weeks.

So until those time locks expire, he will not regain total access to his funds. IE: Can't spend any until the time locks expire.  :P



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on August 03, 2018, 02:34:10 PM
To run what I consider a nice VPS is ~$60 per month.
So just to break even means for the VPS cost only, $60 /30 days = $2 per day

So all the nodes on the lightning network are operating via VPS now?  And your source for this is...?   ::)


Your lack of understanding , gets really old.
A small code change is all it takes to make 10 LN notes from 1 bitcoin, only a mutiplier in the program code.
LN is only a representation of a bitcoin, not the real bitcoin , as such code changes can easily multiply the representation.
Fractional Reserve is just a software update away.

So moving the decimal place is the same as fractional reserve now?  If I had a dollar, but instead I chose to represent that as 100 pennies, that meets the definition of fractional reserve?  Well it's a good thing you're here to tell us this stuff, since that's news to me.   ::)  


Sorry to burst your bubble, but Mega Hubs/Banks are the only ones that are going to make large profits from LN and centralized control of bitcoin while doing it.
(No different than Walmart bankrupting the Mom & Pop Stores by competing at a lower price margin and having a higher volume to still make a profit.)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but your earlier predictions about LN being subject to KYC/AML will have to come true first.  The banks won't even be allowed to touch LN, or even Bitcoin at all (including on-chain transactions), unless KYC/AML is enforced in every single country that particular bank operates in.  Until then, no banks will be involved at all.  


Go ask Franky1 to explain it to you for like the 100th time, he has more patience for stupid people than I do.   ;)

No thanks, neither of you are fit to explain much of anything, other than perhaps how to troll a forum.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Zin-Zang on August 03, 2018, 07:22:29 PM
To run what I consider a nice VPS is ~$60 per month.
So just to break even means for the VPS cost only, $60 /30 days = $2 per day

So all the nodes on the lightning network are operating via VPS now?  And your source for this is...?   ::)

You rather use the cost of a new PC matching the specs of a $60 Monthly VPS instead, knock yourself out.
One time Input Cost : New PC with 8 gig of ram ~3 gigahertz running at least an I7 Processor
Monthly  Input Cost  : Internet Access with DDOS Protection included (Dedicated BANDWIDTH @ 1Gbps up/down minimum)
                                2 internet provider in case the 1st one goes down to block LN funds from being stolen      
Electricity Input Cost : Monthly Electricity bill for PC & internet modem
* and if you really want to get detailed include the amount of bitcoins locked in your Hub *

 
Your lack of understanding , gets really old.
A small code change is all it takes to make 10 LN notes from 1 bitcoin, only a mutiplier in the program code.
LN is only a representation of a bitcoin, not the real bitcoin , as such code changes can easily multiply the representation.
Fractional Reserve is just a software update away.

So moving the decimal place is the same as fractional reserve now?  If I had a dollar, but instead I chose to represent that as 100 pennies, that meets the definition of fractional reserve?  Well it's a good thing you're here to tell us this stuff, since that's news to me.   ::)  

Sadly  :P, You are stupid too.

No , fraction reserve is taking  $1 but pretending to have $10.
All it takes is 1 software update and when you lock 1 bitcoin with LN , the LN hub owners claims it has 10 bitcoins locked and spends the other 9 fake LN/faux bitcoins, while you still only had 1 bitcoin time locked.
When the majority of people leave their funds locked for the majority of time, this fractional reserve system becomes possible, because not enough people cash out to crash the system. (It is called a Bank run.)
Research how banks were first created, and how the factional reserve system came into effect, it is just history repeating itself with crypto instead of gold.
That time lock of two weeks will be increased longer and longer til eventually onchain redemption of bitcoin will not be allowed or just plain outlawed.
IE: You used to be able to go to the bank and exchange your fiat for gold or silver, government outlawed this in the 1900s.
Which is the same time inflation started going crazy and the value of the dollar started to decline, because it's value is based on nothing but the promise of lying politicians.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but Mega Hubs/Banks are the only ones that are going to make large profits from LN and centralized control of bitcoin while doing it.
(No different than Walmart bankrupting the Mom & Pop Stores by competing at a lower price margin and having a higher volume to still make a profit.)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but your earlier predictions about LN being subject to KYC/AML will have to come true first.  The banks won't even be allowed to touch LN, or even Bitcoin at all (including on-chain transactions), unless KYC/AML is enforced in every single country that particular bank operates in.  Until then, no banks will be involved at all.  

Being that clueless comes natural to you.  ;)

Banks will run LN hubs, and they will store all of the data necessary to comply with KYC/AML regulations.
So that when the Feds do come after LN Hub Owners, they can show all of the supporting information, and suffer no issues whatsoever.
It is like you forget , they already have a Banking License so they can transfer money with no worries of legal ramifications and as long as they record the necessary data.
Fed shows up to a bank, they show Banking License and the Fed thanks them for their time and leaves.
Fed shows up at your house, no banking license & no money transmitter license, your ass gets hauled to jail and fined for failing to operate under the KYC/AML regulations.



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on August 03, 2018, 10:10:23 PM
To run what I consider a nice VPS is ~$60 per month.
So just to break even means for the VPS cost only, $60 /30 days = $2 per day

So all the nodes on the lightning network are operating via VPS now?  And your source for this is...?   ::)

You rather use the cost of a new PC matching the specs of a $60 Monthly VPS instead, knock yourself out.

You've evidently knocked yourself on the head a few too many times already.  You don't need a powerful machine to run a Lightning node (https://medium.com/@stadicus/perfect-low-cost-%EF%B8%8Flightning%EF%B8%8F-node-4c2f42a4ff7b).


All it takes is 1 software update and when you lock 1 bitcoin with LN , the LN hub owners claims it has 10 bitcoins locked and spends the other 9 fake LN/bitcoins, while you still only had 1 bitcoin.
When the majority of people leave their funds locked for the majority of time, this fractional reserve system becomes possible, because not enough people cash out to crash the system.

Prove it then.  Rather than just talking out of your backside, go make that happen.  If it's just a small update, even a total halfwit like you should be able to implement it.  If you're so determined to prove Lightning can't work, please go right ahead and break it already.  I'll wait.  Except you can't.  Because you're nothing but a windbag.  All talk.  


Banks will run LN hubs, and they will store all of the data necessary to comply with KYC/AML regulations.
So that when the Feds do come after LN Hub Owners, they can show all of the supporting information, and suffer no issues whatsoever.
It is like you forget , they already have a Banking License so they can transfer money with no worries of legal ramifications and as long as they record the necessary data.
Fed shows up to a bank, they show Banking License and the Fed thanks them for their time and leaves.
Fed shows up at your house, no banking license & no money transmitter license, your ass gets hauled to jail and fined for failing to operate under the KYC/AML regulations.

Cool story, bro.  Come back when it actually happens.  

Bold, blue emphasis added to your quote to highlight the issue.  Simply having a banking licence isn't an automatic pass for meeting KYC/AML requirements.  Banks can only comply with KYC/AML if they can prove they're holding the necessary details for all their account holders.  Tell me how they're going to do that if no one gives them the details they need.  The moment any LN node asks for personally identifiable information, the moment they lose any hope of someone routing a payment through them.  Users will just transact with other nodes.  

Your fantasy about banks taking over is based on the assumption that the banks themselves would actually want to undermine their established and highly profitable fiat business model (not happening in the real world), the assumption that LN users would be willing to undermine everything we've built here to replace the banks (not happening in the real world) and the assumption that regulators would have any practical way of following all the channels on the Lightning Network and tying the identities of all the participants to a physical address in order to bust their door down (not happening in the real world).  

Banks have barely even wrapped their dinosaur skulls around blockchain yet.  They're still at the "hey, we can make our own blockchain but in a private, walled garden and that will mean we can sack some people and have more automation" stage.  They don't want any interaction with their customers via the blockchain, either on or off chain.  They want record-keeping, administration and auditing.  They want cost-savings in doing those things.  They aren't transacting in crypto.  They don't even want their customers using crypto.  They want you using cards, so the surveillance state can monitor what you're spending your money on and where.  They don't want you having privacy.  Please go to your bank and tell them that you are actively involved in cryptocurrency.  Record that conversation and put it on youtube or something.  I'd love to see that.  If you happen to be speaking to a bank employee that knows anything about anything, watch how fast they close all your fiat accounts because they know they can't enforce KYC/AML and they don't want any issues with the regulators.  As soon as they hear the words "Bitcoin" or "Cryptocurrency", they naturally assume there's a risk of money laundering and will terminate their business with you.  That's what happens in the real world.  Try living in it.  People are growing tired of your fantasy-land drivel.

Of all the businesses that will embrace LN, the banks will most likely be dead last.  


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on August 03, 2018, 10:23:34 PM
As far as damage, I never claimed their would be damage only that the Banks would monopolize LN and their is nothing you can do to stop them.
Your thoughts that small players are going to be the main LN hubs is what is completely ludicrous.
LN will work as originally designed with the Banks running the show.

Here you go. You dig right down to your core mistake here. You just assert as if it is self evident that if the banks run the biggest nodes they will run the show. That doesn't follow at all. In fact it is unlikely that big banks will even bother trying to run big nodes precisely because, unlike the legacy financial system, running all of the biggest nodes doesn't really give them very much power.

You can't just assert that like its self evident. Lightning network doesn't work like the legacy financial system. You need to actually explain, on a mechanical level, the precise mechanism by which being big gives one the ability to "run the show".


You assert that prices will be extremely low without proof, ie: showing no numbers to support your arguments
my assertions are based upon the history of bitcoin and the banking system, along with the walmart effect.
How many guys can mine bitcoin for $60 per month, small guys were pushed out years ago, it will be the same with LN.

I guess the part where a bank could make $6 million per month charging only $.20 per transaction was over your head.  :D

You aren't actually responding to what I said. I said that even if the network ends up dominated by big nodes that it wouldn't be clear that this would result in the big nodes "running the show" and that you would need to detail the mechanism by which big nodes get some sort of power and control over the network by virtue of being big. You responded to that by further trying to convince me that it would in fact be dominated by large nodes. This is not an appropriate response to what I said. It is as if you are talking to someone else or some sort of imaginary strawman that you made up. Either way, not very impressive.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Zin-Zang on August 04, 2018, 04:07:31 AM
You LN guys are just lemmings running for a cliff.  ;)

Enjoy your Banking 2.0  :D

George Santayana
Quote
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

And repeat it , you shall.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/lemmings.gif


Last post, Good Luck Lemmings.    :)




Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: TonyMark on August 04, 2018, 06:37:10 AM
I made this because I couldn't find anything like it already in existence. If a thread like this already exists and I just missed it feel free to close this down mods but point me in the right direction too please. I found this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834043 but it's more of someone asking a (very vague) question about it not a general discussion thread. Anyway, I'll kick it off with a question.

There seems to be a chicken and egg problem with lightning. When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?

Also writing that previous sentence made me wonder, for that matter, what is the correct terminology for these things? If we are just going to call them bitcoins like there is no distinction between the bitcoins on the main net and these frequently renegotiated contractual obligations on the lightning network? Is that reasonable? If not are they lightning tokens? They aren't really tokens the way ERC20 tokens are tokens, are they?


See my friend, Lightning Network basically is an offline scalability solution for bitcoin. It is not bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency tokens. With the help of lightning network, you and your partner can do frequent, micropayment in a faster way and a lower fee via state channels. Bitcoin main chain only needs to record the beginning state and final state of the channels.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on August 04, 2018, 08:24:15 AM
I am here to learn. I will continue debating with you until I am as smart as you. 8)

 :D

I can honestly say, Hell would literally freeze over before that happens.
But it is good to have goals.  :)

Hahaha. You are right. I will never be smart enough to understand why bigger blocks will be ok because "Moore's law", and then ending the debate with "non-mining nodes do not matter".

I will also not be smart enough to understand that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin because "Satoshi's vision".

I will reply on the rest of your post later. I admit that you made good counter-points. Let me internalize them first after I enjoy my Saturday morning. 8)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: antyivan on August 04, 2018, 06:55:00 PM
Do you need a full node, or can run in light mode? :)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on August 04, 2018, 06:59:17 PM
Do you need a full node, or can run in light mode? :)

Most of the Lightning Network implementations require user to run a full Bitcoin node. Take a look at neutrino (https://github.com/lightninglabs/neutrino) if you have limited resources. LND (https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd) supports btcd, bitcoind (full node) and neutrino (light node) but keep in mind that it is still an experimental client. Here (https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/releases) you can download it for any operating system.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on August 06, 2018, 05:24:18 AM
I am here to learn. I will continue debating with you until I am as smart as you. 8)

 :D

I can honestly say, Hell would literally freeze over before that happens.
But it is good to have goals.  :)


It is not an assumption , it is a cost basis from the break even point of maintaining a $60 per month VPS.
Right now people are just doing it for Free and just losing money in the hope profit comes later.

It is an assumption until you run a Lightning node yourself and compute everything. But did you already not say that Lightning nodes do not earn enough from fees?

Definition of the word : Assumption
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

I will replace the term Cost Basis with the Term Input Costs,
to see if you understand that better.

Definition of Input Cost:
Cost of direct material, direct labor, and other overhead items devoted to the production of a good or service.

LN hubs requires a computer & internet access, which no one can deny.
Therefore current prices of a decent VPS are ~$60 per month.
So that $60 is your minimum input cost.
(Notice the time to become proficient running a LN hub was not even included in the input costs.)

So calculating the break even point of what each LN transaction has to meet to match the input cost of $60 is pure math , not assumption.

Yes but Lighnting deniers assumed nodes will take advantage of the users by imposing high fees to profit. Now that it was disproved, the new FUD will be "Lightning will not work because nodes cannot earn from fees". That was the point.

Make up your minds.


Quote
You mean cheat in Lightning? Yes, there will be penalties if you cheat.

If someone can impose penalties and Take away your funds,
it directly means that you NEVER had Total Control as you like to keep asserting which is a false statement.

Example: In Onchain Bitcoin where you control your private keys,
No one can Take any funds from you unless you agree to send them the payment.
They can send you a bill, but they can't make you pay, it is your choice.

With LN Multi signature, the LN Hub can grant your funds to the counterparties at any time their rule system dictates without you having any ability at all to block it.
Not the total control myth , you keep propagating, the most you can truly say, is that you have shared control of the LN funds with the hub.


The Fees the hubs take from you , you can't stop the hubs from getting their fees.
Close a channel and immediately use your funds , You can't do it because they are time locked and you do not have full control of your funds.*Until the Time Locks Expire.*

Wrong you can broadcast the latest state of your channel anytime. Did Andreas Brekken not close his channels but only having minor problems?

https://medium.com/andreas-tries-blockchain/bitcoin-lightning-network-4-what-happens-when-you-close-half-of-the-lightning-network-b25b330dfad2
Quote
The remaining channels cannot close gracefully because the Lightning Node on the other side of the channel is offline.
I force close these channels using lncli closechannel --force.

Closing a channel using --force results in a unilateral close which makes the funds unavailable to me.
The amount of time the funds are locked up depends on the channel policy. This policy is negotiated when the channel opens.
Most channels will release the funds to me in between 1440 and 20180 minutes.

20180 minutes is ~ 2 weeks.

So until those time locks expire, he will not regain total access to his funds. IE: Can't spend any until the time locks expire.  :P



There are rules. Do you believe it would be a good idea not to have penalties in Lightning?

Plus about control, yes you have full control of Bitcoins because there is no custodian risk. You do not need to trust anyone to hold your coins on your behalf.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on August 06, 2018, 04:35:36 PM
Day 23.

Total funding provided is ~2BTC or ~2% of current network value.

Cut fees in half from default values.

  "version": 160200,
  "subversion": "/Satoshi:0.16.2/",
  "protocolversion": 70015,
  "localservices": "000000000000040d",
  "localrelay": true,
  "timeoffset": 0,
  "networkactive": true,
  "connections": 121,
 
---

    "num_pending_channels": 0,
    "num_active_channels": 178,
    "num_peers": 184

---

[Bitcoin]
bitcoin.active=1
bitcoin.basefee=500
bitcoin.feerate=5
bitcoin.minhtlc=18
bitcoin.timelockdelta=18

---

    "day_fee_sum": "8",
    "week_fee_sum": "22",
    "month_fee_sum": "37"


https://i.imgur.com/MKFnbSi.jpg


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on August 06, 2018, 04:40:10 PM
Do you believe it would be a good idea not to have penalties in Lightning?

eltoo would remove the penalty for broadcasting old channel states, so it's not impossible (but this depends on a new opcode being soft forked into bitcoin script)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on August 08, 2018, 02:23:50 PM
Day 25.

2018-08-08 08:52:16.537 [INF] ATPL: Processing new external signal
2018-08-08 08:52:16.537 [INF] ATPL: Triggering attachment directive dispatch, total_funds=0.23550447 BTC
2018-08-08 08:52:16.537 [INF] ATPL: No eligible candidates to connect to

---

    "num_pending_channels": 0,
    "num_active_channels": 172,
    "num_peers": 176

---

    "day_fee_sum": "2",
    "week_fee_sum": "25",
    "month_fee_sum": "40"



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Xian01 on August 11, 2018, 06:32:39 PM
Day 28.

Channel balances were being sucked dry, pretty quickly, at the low rates I was offering.

Reset to default funding values.

"If you want access to my liquidity and routing, you're going to fucking pay for it. Goddamnit."

            "base_fee_msat": "1000",
            "fee_per_mil": "10",
            "fee_rate": 0.00001


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Zin-Zang on August 11, 2018, 09:21:42 PM
Day 28.

Channel balances were being sucked dry, pretty quickly, at the low rates I was offering.

Reset to default funding values.

"If you want access to my liquidity and routing, you're going to fucking pay for it. "

           "base_fee_msat": "1000",
            "fee_per_mil": "10",
            "fee_rate": 0.00001



Ok ,
Just to make sure I am understanding your #s.
Are you saying you are now charging 0.00001 bitcoin per transaction. (Which is the default.)
Which is at the moment the equivalent of 0.06 US$ per transaction.

Is this per each LN transaction?

Correct me if I misunderstood.

Thanks.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on August 11, 2018, 09:38:55 PM
Are you saying you are now charging 0.00001 bitcoin per transaction. (Which is the default.)
Which is at the moment the equivalent of 0.06 US$ per transaction.

Is this per each LN transaction?

The total fee charged is basefee + (amount * feerate / 1000000), where amount is the forwarded amount.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Zin-Zang on August 11, 2018, 10:18:17 PM
Are you saying you are now charging 0.00001 bitcoin per transaction. (Which is the default.)
Which is at the moment the equivalent of 0.06 US$ per transaction.

Is this per each LN transaction?

The total fee charged is basefee + (amount * feerate / 1000000), where amount is the forwarded amount.

Ok say the amount is .1 btc sent
basefee + (amount * feerate / 1000000)
.00001000 +(.1 *0.00001 / 1000000) =

Converted to US$
$0.06 + (amount so small , it is of no issue)=

Seems to be no point to this as the # is too small to matter, are you sure this is correct?
(amount * feerate / 1000000)
(.1 *0.00001 / 1000000)

Thanks.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on August 12, 2018, 07:56:58 AM
Seems to be no point to this as the # is too small to matter, are you sure this is correct?
(amount * feerate / 1000000)
(.1 *0.00001 / 1000000)

I don't think that it is wrong. The Lightning Network is meant to have low fees. If you want to charge more for your routing work no matter what the amount is then change the basefee. Since any channel might need re-balancing in the future, one should charge more for big amounts of bitcoins. You can set the feerate to be much higher but keep in mind that other nodes might offer lower cost for the same work.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on August 13, 2018, 06:15:30 AM
Do you believe it would be a good idea not to have penalties in Lightning?

eltoo would remove the penalty for broadcasting old channel states, so it's not impossible (but this depends on a new opcode being soft forked into bitcoin script)

But that is not the point. After the new OPcode added, there would still be something else replacing the penalty system to keep Lightning transactions "honest".

Zin-Zing was pointing out that the users do not have control of their Bitcoins in Lightning because they can be penalized or because they have to wait for some time to receive your coins after broadcasting the latest state of their channel.



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on August 13, 2018, 08:22:39 PM
But that is not the point.

Yes it was, and it was the point I replied to. I would never reply directly or indirectly to the user you were talking to (who I think is a banned user evading a ban)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: d5000 on August 13, 2018, 09:33:52 PM
After the new OPcode added, there would still be something else replacing the penalty system to keep Lightning transactions "honest".

Zin-Zing was pointing out that the users do not have control of their Bitcoins in Lightning because they can be penalized or because they have to wait for some time to receive your coins after broadcasting the latest state of their channel.
That's exactly why I would like more research going into sidechains. A LN transaction can be fairly safe, but it cannot be compared to a Bitcoin on-chain transaction, as there is some "loss of control" involved.

I always compared LN to a "decentralized prepaid card". That's also the reason why I think it won't be frequently used for big purchases, like cars, homes, machinery, etc., but it's absolutely awesome for micropayments.

Sidechain transactions, in contrast, have much more in common with on-chain transactions, because they follow a similar paradigm (total control, no chargeback possible) only that the peg to Bitcoin makes them slightly more insecure. I consider them, thus, a perfect complement of LN, for larger transactions. The problem of sidechains is that still there is no working concept for it to be secure in a decentralized fashion. But if the Bitcoin community ignores the topic completely, then its possible that Ethereum or Cardano, both working on the concept, (I'm invested in neither of them, I tried to try Cardano but it failed to work.), or some other coin could be first-movers here.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on August 13, 2018, 10:31:22 PM
After the new OPcode added, there would still be something else replacing the penalty system to keep Lightning transactions "honest".

Zin-Zing was pointing out that the users do not have control of their Bitcoins in Lightning because they can be penalized or because they have to wait for some time to receive your coins after broadcasting the latest state of their channel.
That's exactly why I would like more research going into sidechains. A LN transaction can be fairly safe, but it cannot be compared to a Bitcoin on-chain transaction, as there is some "loss of control" involved.

So, when an improvement to a new paradigm is on the table, that's somehow a reason to want other people to invest time and energy into contemplating an extension of an old paradigm? That doesn't make any sense


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: d5000 on August 13, 2018, 10:57:01 PM
So, when an improvement to a new paradigm is on the table, that's somehow a reason to want other people to invest time and energy into contemplating an extension of an old paradigm? That doesn't make any sense
If you refer to eltoo: the "loss of control" problem also exists with LN-penalty, and all variants involving a contract that locks funds to be able to punish offenders.

The "old paradigm" is also the base for the "new paradigm", or would you like a LN-like offchain network without any on-chain transactions? ;)

"Old" and "new" are not relevant categories I consider when it comes to value a proposal to improve scalability or whatever other problem. "Efficiency", "Security", "Decentralization", and "Control" are.

(And no, sidechains cannot replace LN. They can only complement it, as LN has some advantages sidechains could never achieve - so they're suited for different use cases.)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on August 14, 2018, 06:58:50 AM
But that is not the point.

Yes it was, and it was the point I replied to. I would never reply directly or indirectly to the user you were talking to (who I think is a banned user evading a ban)

Haha. I am confused.

At any rate, anything better replacing Lightning's "penalty system" would be a plus for the network. What OPcodes are proposed to be soft forked in by the way?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on August 15, 2018, 04:18:01 PM
At any rate, anything better replacing Lightning's "penalty system" would be a plus for the network. What OPcodes are proposed to be soft forked in by the way?

According to this document (https://blockstream.com/eltoo.pdf), BIP 118 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/98b7238f68d17f0e01275dd32075078702225356/bip-0118.mediawiki) describes the new flag that is needed for eltoo to work. The NOINPUT flag applies to every segwit signature verification opcode; OP_CHECKSIG, OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY, OP_CHECKMULTISIG, OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Jedabucol on August 16, 2018, 01:22:00 AM

There seems to be a chicken and egg problem with lightning. When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?
Also writing that previous sentence made me wonder, for that matter, what is the correct terminology for these things? If we are just going to call them bitcoins like there is no distinction between the bitcoins on the main net and these frequently renegotiated contractual obligations on the lightning network? Is that reasonable? When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?
Everything is settled down once someone decides to close the channel. The biggest issue right now is that channel limits how much you can spend. Split payments are a planned feature.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on August 16, 2018, 03:57:29 AM
When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?

When you open a channel you are essentially giving your money to someone else while making certain arrangements that ensure that they can't spend it themselves without your permission (think of it like a wad of cash that you hand to someone else with a string attached that you can yank if you see them doing anything fishy :D). Next what you can do is renegotiate the arrangement so that you can now only take back part of it and not all of it. This renegotiation where you went from being able to take back all of it to now only being able to take part of it is what we refer to as a lightning transaction. So you see what is missing from your equation is that the other party has not made a similar but opposite arrangement with you. They have not given you money that they could take back at any time. They could have though, if they wanted to, and if they had than you would have had no problem in receiving without spending down first.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on August 16, 2018, 06:12:05 AM
When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?

When you open a channel you are essentially giving your money to someone else while making certain arrangements that ensure that they can't spend it themselves without your permission (think of it like a wad of cash that you hand to someone else with a string attached that you can yank if you see them doing anything fishy :D).

No, not it is not "giving away your money" to someone else. It is more like sending your money for safe keeping in a multisig address that you can get anytime you want. "Giving away" implies you already "lost" control over your money, but what stops it is the "rules".

Quote
Next what you can renegotiate the arrangements so that you can now only take back part of it and not all of it. This renegotiation where you went from being able to take back all of it to now only being able to take part of it is what we refer to as a lightning transaction. So you see what is missing from your equation is that the other party has not made a similar but opposite arrangement with you. They have not given you money that they could take back at any time. They could have though, if they wanted to, and if they had than you would have had no problem in receiving without spending down first.

Let's make it simple. "You can spend only up to what you, or what the person in the other end, put in a channel".


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on August 16, 2018, 02:18:16 PM
When I make a new channel it says I can only receive the amount on a channel that I have spent down. So how did the first address get spent down enough to receive the first lightning tokens?

When you open a channel you are essentially giving your money to someone else while making certain arrangements that ensure that they can't spend it themselves without your permission (think of it like a wad of cash that you hand to someone else with a string attached that you can yank if you see them doing anything fishy :D).

No, not it is not "giving away your money" to someone else. It is more like sending your money for safe keeping in a multisig address that you can get anytime you want. "Giving away" implies you already "lost" control over your money, but what stops it is the "rules".

I was trying to make a relatable analogy. He can go read the white paper if he wants to understand technical specifics. I was giving an explanation that didn't require him to understand multisig addresses. I was explaining it like I would explain it to my mother and your "corrections" would confuse my mother.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on August 19, 2018, 06:02:36 AM
Sorry. I only thought that there was a better simplification than the term "given away" because there is nothing "given away" in the Lightning Network.

Telling people that it was like giving away something to a third party would give them the wrong idea.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on August 19, 2018, 05:37:38 PM
Sorry. I only thought that there was a better simplification than the term "given away" because there is nothing "given away" in the Lightning Network.

Telling people that it was like giving away something to a third party would give them the wrong idea.

Well the analogy was that they hold your bundle of cash that you have a string tied to and a lightning transaction is when you untie the string from the whole bundle and retie it on only part of the bundle. It's giving it to them in the sense that they are holding the bundle not that they are the owner of it. /shrug it's the best non technical analogy I can think of.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Spendulus on August 20, 2018, 02:58:10 AM
It would be pretty darn nice to have a hardware lightning channel that could be bought, plugged in, connected, and loaded with 1/10 BTC.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on August 20, 2018, 08:33:13 AM
Sorry. I only thought that there was a better simplification than the term "given away" because there is nothing "given away" in the Lightning Network.

Telling people that it was like giving away something to a third party would give them the wrong idea.

Well the analogy was that they hold your bundle of cash that you have a string tied to and a lightning transaction is when you untie the string from the whole bundle and retie it on only part of the bundle. It's giving it to them in the sense that they are holding the bundle not that they are the owner of it. /shrug it's the best non technical analogy I can think of.

Hahaha yes. Except the string has a lock that only you have one of the keys to open it to make a transaction. Plus, you can also pull your end of the string to get your money or what is left of your money if you spent some of it.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: d5000 on August 20, 2018, 04:27:44 PM
The "money tied to a string" analogy isn't that bad, actually ;)

In the most popular LN concept, both parties that open a payment channel are normally equal to each other in the sense that both have to lock money. So both are "giving away" the money in some sense, it's not only one of them.

I prefer an analogy using the concept of a "shared account", where both parties can use the money they put into to transact to other parties - the parties the other party is connected to. This could be explained to beginners mentioning the "money as a payment network" concept (everybody has relations where he spends money, and others where he receives money). It's like a "bilateral prepaid card". And if one of both cheats and uses money of the other party, the victim is entitled to take the whole money as a punishment, for a certain time. (Well, that would be LN-Penalty, in eltoo it would be slightly different).

(Just installing neutrino to try out the "Lightning light client." If there's interest I report my experiences, although I'll only transact on testnet I guess.)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on August 27, 2018, 12:24:13 PM
BitMEX (https://www.bitmex.com/) has just become the first cryptocurrency exchange with their own Lightning Network node. As they stated on their Twitter (https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1031814678371069952), withdrawals and deposits through the Lightning Network won't arrive anytime soon but it's definitely a huge step forward. I'd be interested to know how much exchanges will charge for the Lightning Network withdrawals.

(Just installing neutrino to try out the "Lightning light client." If there's interest I report my experiences, although I'll only transact on testnet I guess.)

Any update on this? You mentioned in the other thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4940536.msg44532644#msg44532644) that you had some problems with setting it up.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: user_ on August 28, 2018, 11:12:14 AM
Hi, everyone.
Can anyone recommend a good reference book or description of the LN (comprehensive technical description)? I tried to read the original Whitepaper several times, but in my view the description of the LN in the Whitepapes is not that good and difficult to understand.
And the second question, is there any standardization work on the LN integration with other ecosystems? LN is said to be an overlay network, so I assume it could be used for example in the Litecoin ecosystem and others. For that I believe such altcoin ecosystems should offer some specific API/interfaces without which LN will not function.
Thank you,


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on August 28, 2018, 02:02:46 PM
Can anyone recommend a good reference book or description of the LN (comprehensive technical description)? I tried to read the original Whitepaper several times, but in my view the description of the LN in the Whitepapes is not that good and difficult to understand.

I don't think if there are any good books yet, but I have written two threads which you might find helpful (Basics of the Lightning Network (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4940536.msg44524521#msg44524521) and Lightning Network FAQ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4792622.msg43243696#msg43243696)). Feel free to ask us any questions in any of these threads.

And the second question, is there any standardization work on the LN integration with other ecosystems?

Yes, there is (Lightning Network Specifications (https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc)). Lightning Network can be easily implemented in every Bitcoin hardfork which supports SegWit. There have been a few tests on Litecoin and everything was working fine. You might ask if there is any point in implementing LN in any other cryptocurrency. Yes, atomic swaps require at least one altcoin to work with the Lightning Network and they are very likely to replace escrow in some cases.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Zin-Zang on August 30, 2018, 02:15:02 PM
Can anyone recommend a good reference book or description of the LN (comprehensive technical description)? I tried to read the original Whitepaper several times, but in my view the description of the LN in the Whitepapes is not that good and difficult to understand.

I don't think if there are any good books yet, but I have written two threads which you might find helpful (Basics of the Lightning Network (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4940536.msg44524521#msg44524521) and Lightning Network FAQ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4792622.msg43243696#msg43243696)). Feel free to ask us any questions in any of these threads.

And the second question, is there any standardization work on the LN integration with other ecosystems?

Yes, there is (Lightning Network Specifications (https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc)). Lightning Network can be easily implemented in every Bitcoin hardfork which supports SegWit. There have been a few tests on Litecoin and everything was working fine. You might ask if there is any point in implementing LN in any other cryptocurrency. Yes, atomic swaps require at least one altcoin to work with the Lightning Network and they are very likely to replace escrow in some cases.


Groestlcoin also implemented segwit, they were the only one to actually use a hard fork instead of a soft fork like btc & ltc.

 


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: mindrust on August 30, 2018, 02:56:59 PM
BitMEX (https://www.bitmex.com/) has just become the first cryptocurrency exchange with their own Lightning Network node. As they stated on their Twitter (https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1031814678371069952), withdrawals and deposits through the Lightning Network won't arrive anytime soon but it's definitely a huge step forward. I'd be interested to know how much exchanges will charge for the Lightning Network withdrawals.

(Just installing neutrino to try out the "Lightning light client." If there's interest I report my experiences, although I'll only transact on testnet I guess.)

Any update on this? You mentioned in the other thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4940536.msg44532644#msg44532644) that you had some problems with setting it up.

Somebody on reddit was asking if it is possible to buy bitcoins without touching on-chain but directly from a lightning exchange. If this stuff becomes real and gets adopted, not many people will be using on-chain in the future. Now we know why big blockers&miners hated LN&Segwit so much.

This is a game changer.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: ForceOfSS on September 02, 2018, 06:40:33 AM
Just read this Blockstream blog, and I am excited to see growing research on scaling solution and how things would really different (read awesome) down the line.

eltoo: A Simplified Update Mechanism for Lightning and Off-Chain Contracts

https://blockstream.com/2018/04/30/eltoo-next-lightning.html

Would love to discuss more/ what do you guys think?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: d5000 on September 02, 2018, 07:22:36 AM
BitMEX (https://www.bitmex.com/) has just become the first cryptocurrency exchange with their own Lightning Network node. As they stated on their Twitter (https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1031814678371069952), withdrawals and deposits through the Lightning Network won't arrive anytime soon but it's definitely a huge step forward. I'd be interested to know how much exchanges will charge for the Lightning Network withdrawals.

Interesting :)

Quote
(Just installing neutrino to try out the "Lightning light client." If there's interest I report my experiences, although I'll only transact on testnet I guess.)
Any update on this? You mentioned in the other thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4940536.msg44532644#msg44532644) that you had some problems with setting it up.
No, I hadn't much time these days to continue with the installation process, but I soon hope to do so soon. The problem I had was the lack of a guide to install the neutrino client alongside to lnd. I guess it has to be built and installed with a Go compiler?

@ForceOfSS (I hope the name is not related to what I think): Regarding eltoo, we discussed it a couple of pages ago. In my opinion, the design of the "penalty" for scammers is the biggest hurdle there as it looks like an additional security deposit would be needed, otherwise (without any penalty) it may become to easy to post earlier channel states.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on September 02, 2018, 09:21:01 PM
No, I hadn't much time these days to continue with the installation process, but I soon hope to do so soon. The problem I had was the lack of a guide to install the neutrino client alongside to lnd. I guess it has to be built and installed with a Go compiler?

It looks like neutrino (https://github.com/lightninglabs/neutrino) is already a part of LND. Running it doesn't require much setup.

To run lnd in neutrino mode, run lnd with the following arguments, (swapping in --bitcoin.simnet if needed), and also your own btcd node if available:
lnd --bitcoin.active --bitcoin.testnet --debuglevel=debug --bitcoin.node=neutrino --neutrino.connect=faucet.lightning.community

Keep in mind that the node you want to use has to support BIP 157 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0157.mediawiki) and BIP 158 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0158.mediawiki).


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on September 02, 2018, 09:57:29 PM
Keep in mind that the node you want to use has to support BIP 157 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0157.mediawiki) and BIP 158 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0158.mediawiki).

Which means compiling the beta 0.18 master branch for the Bitcoin client yourself at this moment in time. Strictly speaking the node only needs BIP157, (BIP157 is the server tech and BIP158 is the client tech) but the neutrino client is designed to use BIP158 anyway.

Edit: technically, 0.18 doesn't really exist. Compile the master branch from git://githb.com/bitcoin/bitcoin


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: d5000 on September 03, 2018, 04:01:12 AM
It looks like neutrino (https://github.com/lightninglabs/neutrino) is already a part of LND. Running it doesn't require much setup.
Thanks! That explains a lot. I had tried to compile neutrino with the go build /go install commands, and was a bit irritated that I didn't find a binary after that step in the $GOPATH/bin folder, also the LND command specifying neutrino as the Bitcoin client (the one you mentioned, which is the same one in the LND guide) gave me an error. I don't know exactly if it has something to do with it, but after the compiling step the LND command  finally worked.

So I can start testing now. :)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 03, 2018, 06:42:01 AM
Can anyone recommend a good reference book or description of the LN (comprehensive technical description)? I tried to read the original Whitepaper several times, but in my view the description of the LN in the Whitepapes is not that good and difficult to understand.

I don't think if there are any good books yet, but I have written two threads which you might find helpful (Basics of the Lightning Network (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4940536.msg44524521#msg44524521) and Lightning Network FAQ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4792622.msg43243696#msg43243696)). Feel free to ask us any questions in any of these threads.

And the second question, is there any standardization work on the LN integration with other ecosystems?

Yes, there is (Lightning Network Specifications (https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc)). Lightning Network can be easily implemented in every Bitcoin hardfork which supports SegWit. There have been a few tests on Litecoin and everything was working fine. You might ask if there is any point in implementing LN in any other cryptocurrency. Yes, atomic swaps require at least one altcoin to work with the Lightning Network and they are very likely to replace escrow in some cases.


Groestlcoin also implemented segwit, they were the only one to actually use a hard fork instead of a soft fork like btc & ltc.

 

Groesticoin can do an exclusive hard fork whenever their developers like because their coin has no value and no users. Bitcoin's forks should be inclusive because the risk of isolating validating nodes, and the community, in the network is much bigger.

Plus the big reason why Bitmain was against Segwit as a soft fork was because it would kill AsicBoost.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on September 04, 2018, 02:24:51 PM
Another great news! The Lightning Network has surpassed 100 BTC capacity again. The most interesting thing is that SatoshiLabs, which is the company behind TREZOR, has created their own node (https://1ml.com/node/0279c22ed7a068d10dc1a38ae66d2d6461e269226c60258c021b1ddcdfe4b00bc4) whose capacity is over 12 BTC! That's more than 10% of the overall network capacity. I would like to know if they are going to accept Lightning Network payments for their devices anytime soon.

Source: https://twitter.com/hodlonaut/status/1036350887608942593


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on September 04, 2018, 02:59:04 PM
Another great news! The Lightning Network has surpassed 100 BTC capacity again. The most interesting thing is that SatoshiLabs, which is the company behind TREZOR, has created their own node (https://1ml.com/node/0279c22ed7a068d10dc1a38ae66d2d6461e269226c60258c021b1ddcdfe4b00bc4) whose capacity is over 12 BTC! That's more than 10% of the overall network capacity. I would like to know if they are going to accept Lightning Network payments for their devices anytime soon.

Source: https://twitter.com/hodlonaut/status/1036350887608942593

Now that's a feature that would cause me to actually upgrade my trezor one.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Flatulenters on September 04, 2018, 11:55:34 PM
It would be pretty darn nice to have a hardware lightning channel that could be bought, plugged in, connected, and loaded with 1/10 BTC.

there is  one now, its called casa node


https://keys.casa/lightning-bitcoin-node/


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: JayJuanGee on September 05, 2018, 12:03:54 AM
It would be pretty darn nice to have a hardware lightning channel that could be bought, plugged in, connected, and loaded with 1/10 BTC.

there is  one now, its called casa node


https://keys.casa/lightning-bitcoin-node/

Where would be the place to look at relatively objective reviews about such a device?  Of course, the company itself is going to say nice things, but how can we be assured that we are NOT screwed over in the future after we have set up the device and then later realize that our BTC ended up getting stolen?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Flatulenters on September 05, 2018, 12:14:46 AM
It would be pretty darn nice to have a hardware lightning channel that could be bought, plugged in, connected, and loaded with 1/10 BTC.

there is  one now, its called casa node


https://keys.casa/lightning-bitcoin-node/

Where would be the place to look at relatively objective reviews about such a device?  Of course, the company itself is going to say nice things, but how can we be assured that we are NOT screwed over in the future after we have set up the device and then later realize that our BTC ended up getting stolen?

No reviews yet as they just starting to accept pre orders. first shipments will be in ocktober. Yeah, there will always be a risk using any hardware/software built by a 3d party.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on September 05, 2018, 05:13:21 AM
Of course, the company itself is going to say nice things, but how can we be assured that we are NOT screwed over in the future after we have set up the device and then later realize that our BTC ended up getting stolen?

If you are really concerned about this (and you should be) then consider buying Raspberry Pi with an external harddrive. You can use RaspiBlitz. It's quite easy to install.  Here  (https://github.com/rootzoll/raspiblitz/blob/master/README.md) you can view the installation instructions and there is even a list of hardware which you will need. The cost is 120 euro (including a touchscreen!) which is about 150 dollars. Half the cost for a self-made and open source device. The only flaw is that you might not like using the command line all the time.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: JayJuanGee on September 05, 2018, 06:29:06 AM
Of course, the company itself is going to say nice things, but how can we be assured that we are NOT screwed over in the future after we have set up the device and then later realize that our BTC ended up getting stolen?

If you are really concerned about this (and you should be) then consider buying Raspberry Pi with an external harddrive. You can use RaspiBlitz. It's quite easy to install.  Here  (https://github.com/rootzoll/raspiblitz/blob/master/README.md) you can view the installation instructions and there is even a list of hardware which you will need. The cost is 120 euro (including a touchscreen!) which is about 150 dollars. Half the cost for a self-made and open source device. The only flaw is that you might not like using the command line all the time.

Hey BitCryptex... thanks for the description of another option. 

A reason that I responded to Flatulenters's earlier post with my question was because I am enthralled by the idea of a kind of plug and play user experience - even though I understand that command line might give a bit more control.

Perhaps I am waiting for a set up that is nearly as easy as setting up a Trezor...? hahahaha... Wishful thinking, perhaps?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on September 07, 2018, 07:05:19 PM
A reason that I responded to Flatulenters's earlier post with my question was because I am enthralled by the idea of a kind of plug and play user experience - even though I understand that command line might give a bit more control.

Perhaps I am waiting for a set up that is nearly as easy as setting up a Trezor...? hahahaha... Wishful thinking, perhaps?

Actually, we are not that far from that! There are still a few problems to solve (e.g. receiving money if one's node is offline) but it is a matter of time before someone releases a small device similar to TREZOR capable of running a Lightning Network node. I have found an interesting tutorial (https://hackernoon.com/how-to-build-your-own-portable-plug-in-lightning-node-c4093a4b10fb) on making your own portable Lightning Network node. It still requires some technical knowledge but as you can see we are getting closer to the thing described by you.

By the way, TREZOR T has got a micro-SD slot so it might have some LN related features in the future.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: OddEvenBets.com on September 10, 2018, 10:03:56 AM
Can I install LN node and daemon on Ubuntu 14.04?
I try but cannot compile..

Code:
The 1990s are calling: use ./configure!
The 1990s are calling: use ./configure!
make: *** [ccan/config.h] Error 1


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on September 10, 2018, 11:03:46 AM
Can I install LN node and daemon on Ubuntu 14.04?
I try but cannot compile..

Code:
The 1990s are calling: use ./configure!
The 1990s are calling: use ./configure!
make: *** [ccan/config.h] Error 1


install automake, then do ./configure && make


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 11, 2018, 07:38:58 AM
This post was made by franky1 from another topic. I am bringing this in here to discuss and debate. I will ask him to come here if he wants to discuss.

Quote
remember the gold era. people stopped swapping gold and locked it into vaults/banks/fortknox(LN factories) and traded unconfirmed receipts of proof with each other until one side no longer had value. then the winner... became those that were the vaults

Before we continue, can you explain "why" the vaults became the winner, and how that relates to the Lightning Network?

Quote
if you read LN's 2018 concept you will see,,  LN factories/watchtowers = third party= banks

But are Lightning nodes = banks? Do the users surrender all control of their Bitcoins to open a channel? Is there a fractional reserve?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on September 11, 2018, 04:32:01 PM
But are Lightning nodes = banks? Do the users surrender all control of their Bitcoins to open a channel? Is there a fractional reserve?

There is no fractional reserve (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8oah96/debunked_fractional_reserve_banking_is_fully/) on the Lightning Network. Opening a channel means locking up bitcoins in a multi-signature address. Both parties have the same level of control as long as they are online - you can get your coins back any time you want except when the other party is offline. Anyone can set up a Lightning Network node so even if banks attempted to hijack the network, it would be possible to exclude their nodes from routing your payment.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 12, 2018, 05:58:36 AM
I know, those questions were asked rhetorically. Because there are some people in this forum that I cannot understand why they would resort to twisting the facts to make a criticism. Is it pride? Perhaps tribalism?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on September 12, 2018, 07:18:07 AM
I know, those questions were asked rhetorically. Because there are some people in this forum that I cannot understand why they would resort to twisting the facts to make a criticism. Is it pride? Perhaps tribalism?

Some people just go full on tin-foil-hat sometimes.  They see people moving forward together and assume it has to be a conspiracy, rather than simply taking a course of action which is beneficial for the group as a whole.  Or, if they aren't deluded, they're just malicious.  One or the other.  The good news is that it won't slow our progress and few people are buying into the FUD.  Just ignore them.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Samarkand on September 12, 2018, 05:52:23 PM
...
Both parties have the same level of control as long as they are online - you can get your coins back any time you want except when the other party is offline.
...

Is there a comprehensive list of solutions that mitigate
this "you always have to be online" problem if you want full
control of your funds in open payment channels?

This just seems like a huge barrier to entry for newcomers, because many average
persons are neither willing nor able to run LN-related software 24/7. If the solution
is a centralized service that watches your open LN channels, there are obviously
several disadvantages inherent to a centralized solution.




Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on September 12, 2018, 07:55:54 PM
Eclair wallet for Android now supports channel backup! Channel data is encrypted and optionally uploaded to Google Drive which makes it easy for an average user to recover it when needed.

Is there a comprehensive list of solutions that mitigate
this "you always have to be online" problem if you want full
control of your funds in open payment channels?

The only thing I can think of right now are watchtowers which some people consider as a security threat. Keep in mind that if the other party attempts to close the channel forcefully when you are offline, it won't happen immediately. The locktime is negotiated always when the channel is founded. Usually, it is about 144 blocks (1 day). Running a Lightning Network node isn't as demanding as Bitcoin Core instance. Thanks to neutrino you don't have to download much data.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on September 12, 2018, 08:18:51 PM
Is there a comprehensive list of solutions that mitigate
this "you always have to be online" problem if you want full
control of your funds in open payment channels?

Run your own lightning node 24/7/365. It's not very demanding, an Arduino or Raspberry Pi could do it (in fact, your internet router could probably do it, which is kinda convenient as being online 24/7/365 is what a router's designed for)


This just seems like a huge barrier to entry for newcomers, because many average
persons are neither willing nor able to run LN-related software 24/7. If the solution
is a centralized service that watches your open LN channels, there are obviously
several disadvantages inherent to a centralized solution.

Well, watchtowers aren't even an option yet, the code for the protocol doesn't exist AFAIK. As stated elsewhere in the thread, eltoo simplifies the situation, and there's probably more room for improvement too.

I personally think that having a small server running out of your house will slowly become a cultural norm, as lightning nodes are certainly not the only reason something like that is useful.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 13, 2018, 05:59:21 AM
Is there a comprehensive list of solutions that mitigate
this "you always have to be online" problem if you want full
control of your funds in open payment channels?

Run your own lightning node 24/7/365. It's not very demanding, an Arduino or Raspberry Pi could do it (in fact, your internet router could probably do it, which is kinda convenient as being online 24/7/365 is what a router's designed for)


For Bitcoin nerds like us, yes we can do it, although I have not found any motivation to set up a node and join the Lightning Network yet. But for an average user of "Bitcoin as a payments tool", it would take more effort, time, and more eading.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on September 13, 2018, 11:02:46 AM
for an average user of "Bitcoin as a payments tool", it would take more effort, time, and more eading.

Well, Bitcoin is a cultural change as well as a different type of money. I've learnt things I perhaps otherwise wouldn't so that I can be more effective using Bitcoin, there's no reason not to expect that others will be similarly motivated. Plus, complete lightning nodes are available for sale already


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Samarkand on September 14, 2018, 08:29:16 AM
...
For Bitcoin nerds like us, yes we can do it, although I have not found any motivation to set up a node and join the Lightning Network yet. But for an average user of "Bitcoin as a payments tool", it would take more effort, time, and more eading.

This was exactly my concern. Many people won´t bother with using an Arduino and instead will
rely on their credit card and let VISA handle the "server stuff" and the "technical details".

Of course it would be trivial for more tech-savvy people, but the average citizen probably
has to be incentivized to use the LN in another way.

...
As stated elsewhere in the thread, eltoo simplifies the situation, and there's probably more room for improvement too.
...

I did some reading regarding eltoo after you pointed out eltoo the last time.
However, my impression was that eltoo needs certain additions to the Bitcoin protocol
that haven´t been implemented so far.

https://www.bitcoinlightning.com/eltoo-protocol/

Quote
The Eltoo protocol is gaining steam among LN advocates.  To institute Eltoo, it will be required to add the SIGHASH flag and SIGHASH_NOINPUT to the Bitcoin protocol.




Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on September 14, 2018, 09:46:49 AM
...
As stated elsewhere in the thread, eltoo simplifies the situation, and there's probably more room for improvement too.
...

I did some reading regarding eltoo after you pointed out eltoo the last time.
However, my impression was that eltoo needs certain additions to the Bitcoin protocol
that haven´t been implemented so far.

https://www.bitcoinlightning.com/eltoo-protocol/

Quote
The Eltoo protocol is gaining steam among LN advocates.  To institute Eltoo, it will be required to add the SIGHASH flag and SIGHASH_NOINPUT to the Bitcoin protocol.

Yes, that requires a softfork.  But then so does Schnorr Sigs, so there will probably end up being a few new features bundled together in the next softfork, just to save having more than one.  The assumption is that this will be far less controversial than the previous softfork, as most of the would-be-opponents have forked away and care more about their other chains now.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on September 15, 2018, 01:00:09 PM
LND v0.5 beta (https://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2018/09/14/lnd-v0.5.html) has just been announced. This version mostly consists of many small improvements. However, there are a few things worth taking look at. Autopilot can now create unadvertised channels which do not take part in payment routing. Another great thing is that channels which are being closed are excluded from routing payments. The same applies if one of the node's peers is offline.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: suzanne5223 on September 15, 2018, 09:42:41 PM
for an average user of "Bitcoin as a payments tool", it would take more effort, time, and more eading.

Well, Bitcoin is a cultural change as well as a different type of money. I've learnt things I perhaps otherwise wouldn't so that I can be more effective using Bitcoin, there's no reason not to expect that others will be similarly motivated. Plus, complete lightning nodes are available for sale already
You're right but there's is something I don't understand concern what you said about the complete lightning nodes to be available for sale and the Casa nodes which was meant for showcasing the Lightning network to big exchanges. Does all this mean that the lightning network is no longer beta testing?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on September 15, 2018, 10:51:51 PM
Does all this mean that the lightning network is no longer beta testing?

The Lightning Network still needs some testing, especially after making changes to how payments are being routed. The maximum channel capacity is about 0.16 BTC. It was introduced on purpose in BOLT implementations to avoid loss of large amounts of coins. In my opinion, once this restriction is removed we can say that the Lightning Network is out of beta.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: franky1 on September 16, 2018, 12:59:53 AM
But are Lightning nodes = banks? Do the users surrender all control of their Bitcoins to open a channel? Is there a fractional reserve?

There is no fractional reserve (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8oah96/debunked_fractional_reserve_banking_is_fully/) on the Lightning Network. Opening a channel means locking up bitcoins in a multi-signature address. Both parties have the same level of control as long as they are online - you can get your coins back any time you want except when the other party is offline. Anyone can set up a Lightning Network node so even if banks attempted to hijack the network, it would be possible to exclude their nodes from routing your payment.

i might aswell interject here
when people use mobile apps for LN. they are not checking the blockchain. they are not even going to get to view the raw TX, all they get to see is a balance.. so many many things can be played about with behind the scenes.
and because the LN locked funds. and the separate unconfirmed transactions are not validated by anyone. they can be manipulated.
i know people believe in utopian peace of perfection. but in the real world greedy people will abuse a system of no outside validation.

and with factories. the factory gets funded onchain. the factory then channels to a hub and the hub channels to a user. so again the user only see's funds it presumes the other party actually has. based on what the hub provides as proof.

after all. i could lock funds into an address and then from my factory show one transaction paying starbucks hub to then open a channel.. while also showing a tx paying a walmart hub who who could channel to me.

the more jumps(layers) between the real funds shown onchain vs the end use. and the less the end use has access to checking it, which allows for more chance of manipulation.

Quote
..
Channel Factories
As our main contribution, we introduce a new layer between the blockchain
and the payment network, giving a three layered system. In the first layer, the
blockchain, funds are locked into a shared ownership between a group of nodes.
The new second layer consists of multi-party micropayment channels we call
channel factories, which can quickly fund regular two party channels. The re-
sulting network provides the third layer, where regular transfers of currency are
executed

also wind_FURY
banks are counter party. you cant just throw funds at anyone. you need your bank to be open and the destinations bank to be open to send a payment and you need them to agree to send it. why do you think banks say 3-5 days payment. because funds have to jump between many hoops.
LN is not a system of paying a destination any time of day using just one lump of funds thats guaranteed to reach the destination day or night. in milliseconds without anyone elses signature.
P.S what i actually was addressing was the fortknox. of locking funds in. not the fractional reserve
you know ... thunderdome.. 2 may enter. but none may leave, if you survive. you exit one thunderdome and realise you entered another thunderdome.. just like how gold got locked into fortknox by making it harder to just get back what you put in
it was you and only you that mentioned the fractional reserve thing.. not me. i was debating fortknox fed reserve.. FEDERAL reserve. not FRACTIONAL
but if you want to talk about fractional reserve. then please take some time to learn about factories first as its better to explain something once you know about what im talking about. so learn factories run some scenarios. but dont run utopian scenarios. run critic/greed/theft style scenarios. then we can talk

and to Doomad
utopian praising and kissing ass something with flaws. (even the devs say things are broke) helps no one
actually being critical and pointing out failures does 2 things: 1 warns people 2. kicks devs ass to fix them

no point with utopian adverts when people use it, see it has issues, gets disappointed and thinks they have been lied to creates more negative adverts and conversations. than to just admit there are issues and limits.
its about not over promising and under delivering.
but hey you call it tinfoil hat. but id love to see you actually rebut how a statement is wrong using lines of code and actual content. and not insults. insults dont disprove or fix the issue.

have a nice day


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 16, 2018, 08:45:18 AM
But are Lightning nodes = banks? Do the users surrender all control of their Bitcoins to open a channel? Is there a fractional reserve?

There is no fractional reserve (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8oah96/debunked_fractional_reserve_banking_is_fully/) on the Lightning Network. Opening a channel means locking up bitcoins in a multi-signature address. Both parties have the same level of control as long as they are online - you can get your coins back any time you want except when the other party is offline. Anyone can set up a Lightning Network node so even if banks attempted to hijack the network, it would be possible to exclude their nodes from routing your payment.

i might aswell interject here
when people use mobile apps for LN. they are not checking the blockchain. they are not even going to get to view the raw TX, all they get to see is a balance.. so many many things can be played about with behind the scenes.
and because the LN locked funds. and the separate unconfirmed transactions are not validated by anyone. they can be manipulated.

Is that limited to Lightning mobile apps? What about Lightning Network nodes like LND?

Quote
i know people believe in utopian peace of perfection. but in the real world greedy people will abuse a system of no outside validation.

and with factories. the factory gets funded onchain. the factory then channels to a hub and the hub channels to a user. so again the user only see's funds it presumes the other party actually has. based on what the hub provides as proof.

after all. i could lock funds into an address and then from my factory show one transaction paying starbucks hub to then open a channel.. while also showing a tx paying a walmart hub who who could channel to me.

the more jumps(layers) between the real funds shown onchain vs the end use. and the less the end use has access to checking it, which allows for more chance of manipulation.

Do you really believe Lightning developers would be so stupid to allow something like that to happen? Haha.

Quote
also wind_FURY
banks are counter party. you cant just throw funds at anyone. you need your bank to be open and the destinations bank to be open to send a payment and you need them to agree to send it. why do you think banks say 3-5 days payment. because funds have to jump between many hoops.
LN is not a system of paying a destination any time of day using just one lump of funds thats guaranteed to reach the destination day or night. in milliseconds without anyone elses signature.
P.S what i actually was addressing was the fortknox. of locking funds in. not the fractional reserve
you know ...

A "Fort Knox" that a user can close a channel and broadcast the latest state of that channel like a normal on-chain transaction is not a "Fort Knox". Hahaha.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: franky1 on September 16, 2018, 01:39:41 PM
Is that limited to Lightning mobile apps? What about Lightning Network nodes like LND?

Quote
i know people believe in utopian peace of perfection. but in the real world greedy people will abuse a system of no outside validation.

after all. i could lock funds into an address and then from my factory show one transaction paying starbucks hub to then open a channel.. while also showing a tx paying a walmart hub who who could channel to me.

the more jumps(layers) between the real funds shown onchain vs the end use. and the less the end use has access to checking it, which allows for more chance of manipulation.

Do you really believe Lightning developers would be so stupid to allow something like that to happen? Haha.

Quote
P.S what i actually was addressing was the fortknox. of locking funds in. not the fractional reserve
you know ...

A "Fort Knox" that a user can close a channel and broadcast the latest state of that channel like a normal on-chain transaction is not a "Fort Knox". Hahaha.

1. keep in mind. LN is broke right now. the devs admit its broke and warn people to only use small funds and to be very careful what they do and who they channel to.

2. its not just mobile apps. but we all know in the future the majority of users will be mobile users. so the risk is on the majority. but with that said even desktop apps are not fixed. people can modify their desktop software to do many things that the counterpart is unaware of. which is why its best that all apps even mobile retain the ability to review raw transactions and not just be 'autopilot' with limited info on the GUI
the reason being. because there is no community rule. and no community vetting, reviewing of transactions within LN. one party of a channel can be attacked by the other party. and the community is not there to protect them.
its why bitcoin works. a transaction is not a transaction until its community reviewed and locked into a blockchain that proves it met all the rules.

3. LN will never be as secure as a blockchain.

4. the idea of a factory is that a factory is level X, a hub is level Y and a user is level Z
the user level when they are channeled alice to bob they have a transaction that shows as

onchain 1aliceaddress(0.1) to factory(0.1)
offchain
(factory gets funds from 10 people paying 0.1)
so the funds are then routed to get to alices channel
factory(1.0) -> hubA(0.5)
                  -> hubB(0.5)
offchain again
hubA(0.5) -> alice(0.1)
                -> bob(0.1)
                -> chuck(0.1)
                -> dave(0.1)
                -> eric(0.1)

so in the user channel
in: alice 0.1 -> bob
                 -> HubA (funds return up the ladder OFFCHAIN. and NOT broadcast onchain to alices legacy address onchain)

that way without broadcasting. the hubA can be told to put the funds into a different channel to a new alice channel.or be up laddered again so the factory if the HubA is settled as Hub A settles to the factory. not a onchain address the factory can then be told what to do with the funds.. again all offchain.

now alice and bob they can see that a transaction exists that shows
factory->hubA->alice and bob

but.. factory can also have secret transaction of Factory(1.0) -> 1factoryonchain(1.0)

as i said by putting steps/gaps/levels moving the user away from the onchain funds. where the user channel is withdrawal/change/closing address is not their own onchain address but the hub/factory up the ladder. those up the ladder 'transactions' are NOT broadcast. are not immutible and not set in stone thus alice has to trust the hub and factory

this is the same process as what banks call 'promisory notes' the end user has lost touch of the gold. and can not see a audited immutible confirmed report end to end of the gold to the promissory note. so they have to trust the input they get to play with(output from one ladder step above them) is ethical and honourable.

again try running scenarios of the concept of factories whereby alice and bob dont settle onchain. they close channel back to a hub/factory before then trying to settle onchain.

again try to think with a critic mindset of a broken system and not a utopian mindset of it works perfectly and there is only one way it can work. remember the communications of one node is not challenged by the network in a community wide consensus. it is therefore free for him to tweak. EG use a schnorr process to hide who actually gets to sign and whereby each participant within their channels and up the ladder holds their own copies of transactions that can be tweaked. especially if you cant see what is being signed and just autopilot agree.

ill give you an example.
imagine a hub sets up an address that alice thinks she has a 5 of 5 (20%) control of. and she has to be part of signing the hubs settlement. but in reality its actually a 1 of 5 multisig using schnorr that makes the hub in full control.

as i said if a mobile app cant check the onchain tx or the raw offchain tx data or even if they could the details of the raw tx data do not reveal its a 1 of 5...   alice is left to "trust" the counterparts involved.

but hey. i just spend time writing this and predict you wont run scenarios of a critic. you will just sheep heard pretend its all utopia and not learn the downsides of the concepts.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: spartacusrex on September 16, 2018, 10:24:11 PM
The funds that you spend in Eltoo (..and L1! for that matter) are locked up in an on-chain transaction that ONLY you and your counter-party can spend (or re-spend in this case) for a given amount of time. It is not possible to have 2 provably valid transactions that you show to 2 separate parties that have access to the block chain.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on September 16, 2018, 10:51:14 PM
I think we should all run franky1's scenario (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4564216.msg43215009#msg43215009) where he thinks being in full control of your balance means you still control it after you've spent it.  He's clearly an authority on the inner workings of the Lightning Network.   ::)

Every time he says "run some scenarios", what he actually means is "make some shit up that doesn't accurately describe how LN works" and then tell other people they have a utopian mindset when they explain how it actually works.   :D


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: franky1 on September 17, 2018, 03:29:41 AM
I think we should all run franky1's scenario (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4564216.msg43215009#msg43215009) where he thinks being in full control of your balance means you still control it after you've spent it.  He's clearly an authority on the inner workings of the Lightning Network.   ::)

Every time he says "run some scenarios", what he actually means is "make some shit up that doesn't accurately describe how LN works" and then tell other people they have a utopian mindset when they explain how it actually works.   :D

doomad. your quoting yourself quoting me and trying to make it look like i said its how LN works...
where as if you bother to take it in its full context of the post... im actually trying to use a flawed theory which i beleive that you are presuming to be true.... and im correcting you.

i was showing how YOUR understanding of what is presumed your wrongful percention of a 2016 concept .. is wrong
it was YOUR presumption that a user has 100% signing authority.. YOU said the other party has no part of the funds
Multisig in LN doesn't mean they have equal control over your portion of the funds in the channel

if its just you signging. then its not a multisig..   i really think you need to really learn what multisigs are. and what factories and channels do

in the part you quotd me..  was not me 'imagining' how LN actually works. its me showing how YOU have not understood it and i was trying to step into your shoes and 'imagine' things from your shoes if 100% control...  and then explain that your wrong. as the other party does have to be involved.

what you quoted.
Quote
anyway. lets simply talk about the channel partnership (old 2016 concept.. which is where i think your stuck in).
imagine if i deposited 1btc into a channel direct. and i retained 100% control of that.
....
that was me going along with your mindset. i even put it in brackets of it being a theory YOUR stuck thinking


what you didnt quote
Quote
now here is a big hint. smart contract.. emphasis .. contract.
contracts are multiparty

that is me giving you a big hint.. contracts are multiparty.

..
anyway it seems your more interested in social distractions and drama. and yet to actually use or research or learn LN.
so again try to actually put an effort into it.
and stop trying to cause drama
by causing drama doesnt make you right it just means you have made an excuse not to bother learning.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: franky1 on September 17, 2018, 03:59:11 AM
The funds that you spend in Eltoo (..and L1! for that matter) are locked up in an on-chain transaction that ONLY you and your counter-party can spend (or re-spend in this case) for a given amount of time. It is not possible to have 2 provably valid transactions that you show to 2 separate parties that have access to the block chain.


it is possible.
again learn factories
firstly the only TX thats onchain is the deposit INTO to the factory address.
the tx from the factory to a hub is OFFCHAIN
the tx from the hub to the personal channel is OFFCHAIN

anyway. while now knowing the payment out of the factory and down the ladder to the hub and then down the ladder to the personal channel is offchain
the personal channel can see (within LN) the up ladder 'payment' of the hub
but they have to trust that the factory or the hub have not secretly made their own tx where the destinations differ.
which can be done easily. (learn schnorr for that part)

and remember alice is not the factory or the hub. the factory and the hub are middlemen.

the whole point of factories and watch towers are to give trust to middle men to watch funds for others..
watchtowers and middle men are not alice. but other people above and away from alice who can do things for alice..
do things good.. and yes, dare i say it, bad

ill quote the ln PDF talking about factories in basic concept
Quote
..
Channel Factories
As our main contribution, we introduce a new layer between the blockchain
and the payment network, giving a three layered system. In the first layer, the
blockchain, funds are locked into a shared ownership between a group of nodes.
The new second layer consists of multi-party micropayment channels we call
channel factories, which can quickly fund regular two party channels. The re-
sulting network provides the third layer, where regular transfers of currency are
executed
so above is a quote from the LN pdf. and i even colour coded it

no where does it say that the payments OUT of the factory to the 'hub' and then to the regular channels are onchain..  because thy are not onchain
but if you want to think they are onchain. then there would be no reason for factories

now please learn factories, run scenarios. and then understand the process. dont be stuck with old concepts. and dont be stuck with weird concepts of 100% self control of funds.. learn multisig

.. at first i thought it was jsut people not wanting to learn from me. so thats why i ask people to learn it themselves by actually learning it themselves and run scenarios..
but then even when asking them to learn about it. it seams people dont.. so i still try to ask them to learn about it..

then i get the drama of them trying to insult and twist words purely as an excuse not to learn about it themselves.
oh well all i can say is
learn LN . if you dont want to thats fine, but if you dont know LN dont get involved in the development discussion.
try to learn about it first, try not to just call it the utopian dream even when you have no knowledge of its function. it helps no one


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 17, 2018, 06:42:54 AM
Is that limited to Lightning mobile apps? What about Lightning Network nodes like LND?

Quote
i know people believe in utopian peace of perfection. but in the real world greedy people will abuse a system of no outside validation.

after all. i could lock funds into an address and then from my factory show one transaction paying starbucks hub to then open a channel.. while also showing a tx paying a walmart hub who who could channel to me.

the more jumps(layers) between the real funds shown onchain vs the end use. and the less the end use has access to checking it, which allows for more chance of manipulation.

Do you really believe Lightning developers would be so stupid to allow something like that to happen? Haha.

Quote
P.S what i actually was addressing was the fortknox. of locking funds in. not the fractional reserve
you know ...

A "Fort Knox" that a user can close a channel and broadcast the latest state of that channel like a normal on-chain transaction is not a "Fort Knox". Hahaha.

1. keep in mind. LN is broke right now. the devs admit its broke and warn people to only use small funds and to be very careful what they do and who they channel to.

You are gaslighting again, franky.

No. The Lightning developers never said it was "broke". They said it would be reckless to use it for larger amounts because it is beta software.

Plus Arthur Brekken used the Lightning Network by being the largest node in the network and no Bitcoins were lost.

Quote
2. its not just mobile apps. but we all know in the future the majority of users will be mobile users. so the risk is on the majority. but with that said even desktop apps are not fixed. people can modify their desktop software to do many things that the counterpart is unaware of. which is why its best that all apps even mobile retain the ability to review raw transactions and not just be 'autopilot' with limited info on the GUI
the reason being. because there is no community rule. and no community vetting, reviewing of transactions within LN. one party of a channel can be attacked by the other party. and the community is not there to protect them.
its why bitcoin works. a transaction is not a transaction until its community reviewed and locked into a blockchain that proves it met all the rules.

Prove it. Where did you see this? Where can we see the "stories" of your accusations?

Quote
3. LN will never be as secure as a blockchain.

This is true. Plus it is not saying it would be. But would Bitcoin Cash's "0-conf" be more secure? I doubt it.

Quote
More posts to confuse everyone

Be more direct to the point and stop gaslighting. 8)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: spartacusrex on September 17, 2018, 09:39:47 AM
The funds that you spend in Eltoo (..and L1! for that matter) are locked up in an on-chain transaction that ONLY you and your counter-party can spend (or re-spend in this case) for a given amount of time. It is not possible to have 2 provably valid transactions that you show to 2 separate parties that have access to the block chain.


it is possible..

[snip..]


_Bollox_ : Plain and Simple   :)

Lightning Basics :

1) At ALL times, I have a valid transaction that I can post and get my money. AT ALL TIMES. I don't need to trust ANYONE not to have made a double spend transaction accessing the same funds (because they are already locked up in an HTLC).. SAME GOES FOR CHANNEL FACTORIES (You think anyone is going to send funds to a factory without the requisite cash out transaction !? ).

..

The *only* proper attack on LN  - is to censor my cash out transaction until the HTLC time locks expire. Good luck with that.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on September 17, 2018, 09:40:48 AM
im actually trying to use a flawed theory which i beleive that you are presuming to be true.... and im correcting you.

As usual, your beliefs are totally and utterly wrong.  You'd first have to understand what I'm saying before you could even begin to attempt correcting me.  And it really shouldn't be that hard because anyone with half a brain can understand this.  You've yet to demonstrate you've understood a single thing anyone has ever told you about Lightning, because you're too busy spreading FUD and trying to draw false analogies with traditional finance to absorb into your thick skull what's being said.

When you and another party both deposit funds into a Lightning multisig, the other party doesn't have the same control over your portion of the coins in that channel as you do.  If you don't spend from an outdated channel state (and eltoo apparently improves on this anyway), you maintain 100% control over your portion of the funds in that channel until the point you freely choose to sign them over to the other party.  They can't broadcast a revocation to take your portion of the funds unless you break the rules.  Granted, it's still possible to break the rules by mistake and lose your funds, but that's why it's still under active development and people shouldn't be using it to deal with larger sums of money yet.

I can't even begin to imagine how you could willfully distort that understanding to mean that anyone could believe you could buy 3000 coffees and still keep your coins, but that's just how astoundingly broken your mind is.  How about you run the scenario where people might actually take you seriously if you made sure you were correct in what you were saying before you said it (and generally weren't such a total bellend).


it is possible.
again learn factories

Learn that factories are basically a proposal at this point?  Learn that if there is a flaw with them that it would be promptly fixed?  Learn that their practical implementation hasn't even been finalised?  Learn that you're a worthless troll and you're talking out of your arse?  Oh wait, we already knew that.




For anyone that wants to read some informed insights into future LN developments, rather than franky1's demented verbal flailings, there's a good blog here (https://blog.theabacus.io/lightning-network-2-0-b878b9bb356e?gi=d960353b7025) that goes into a lot (and I mean a lot) of detail.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: lightningslotmachine on September 17, 2018, 10:02:59 AM
If anyone want to test lightning I have made a simple gambling game for anyone interested, https://www.lightningslotmachine.com/ (https://www.lightningslotmachine.com/)

I have already processed over 500 transactions. All instant using lightning. You can both pay and cash out at any time. In my experience lnd works great.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on September 17, 2018, 04:19:03 PM
im actually trying to use a flawed theory which i beleive that you are presuming to be true.... and im correcting you.

As usual, your beliefs are totally and utterly wrong.  .... because you're too busy spreading FUD  ... to absorb into your thick skull what's being said... but that's just how astoundingly broken your mind is.  
it is possible.
again learn factories

Learn that factories are basically a proposal at this point?  Learn that if there is a flaw with them that it would be promptly fixed?  Learn that their practical implementation hasn't even been finalised? Learn that you're a worthless troll and you're talking out of your arse?  Oh wait, we already knew that.




For anyone that wants to read some informed insights into future LN developments, rather than franky1's demented verbal flailings, there's a good blog here (https://blog.theabacus.io/lightning-network-2-0-b878b9bb356e?gi=d960353b7025) that goes into a lot (and I mean a lot) of detail.
Obviously, you are the troll here ...

Who are you? Obviously not a bitcoiner, a LN shill I suppose. Just Stop harassing people.

When it comes to improving bitcoin your only argument is "Nobody agrees", "It is impossible to reach a consensus about it" , "leave bitcoin unchanged", ...  and when people criticize your beloved LN you go all-in bullshitting and trolling. Honestly, aren't you a paid troller or something?

I checked your stupid reference, it is full of shit. No answer to liquidity, no answer to liveness, just a naive attempt for selling unproven hypothetical fantasies as "possible" workarounds for real problems that make LN a failed project eventually.





Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on September 17, 2018, 05:20:44 PM
im actually trying to use a flawed theory which i beleive that you are presuming to be true.... and im correcting you.

As usual, your beliefs are totally and utterly wrong.  .... because you're too busy spreading FUD  ... to absorb into your thick skull what's being said... but that's just how astoundingly broken your mind is.  
it is possible.
again learn factories

Learn that factories are basically a proposal at this point?  Learn that if there is a flaw with them that it would be promptly fixed?  Learn that their practical implementation hasn't even been finalised? Learn that you're a worthless troll and you're talking out of your arse?  Oh wait, we already knew that.




For anyone that wants to read some informed insights into future LN developments, rather than franky1's demented verbal flailings, there's a good blog here (https://blog.theabacus.io/lightning-network-2-0-b878b9bb356e?gi=d960353b7025) that goes into a lot (and I mean a lot) of detail.
Obviously, you are the troll here ...

Who are you? Obviously not a bitcoiner, a LN shill I suppose. Just Stop harassing people.

When it comes to improving bitcoin your only argument is "Nobody agrees", "It is impossible to reach a consensus about it" , "leave bitcoin unchanged", ...  and when people criticize your beloved LN you go all-in bullshitting and trolling. Honestly, aren't you a paid troller or something?

I checked your stupid reference, it is full of shit. No answer to liquidity, no answer to liveness, just a naive attempt for selling unproven hypothetical fantasies as "possible" workarounds for real problems that make LN a failed project eventually.

Sorry, but no.  You and franky1 are the ones who are full of shit.  I find you two, along with anonymint, to be by far the top three most insufferable parasites on this entire forum.  

You both keep mouthing off about all the parts of development you believe are totally wrong, yet you either can't or won't build anything that would make it better without sacrificing any of the qualities which genuine Bitcoin users actually appreciate.  The reason I approve of LN is because it's built on top in a new layer and doesn't compromise the base protocol.  Conversely, just about every "bright idea" you and franky1 have ever come up with would almost certainly endanger the protocol in some form or another.  If franky1 wants to ruin decentralisation by having nothing but on-chain transactions, he has BCH for that.  There's no point in having two BCH coins, so why replicate what they're doing here?  And if you would happily throw the network's security out the window over your ridiculous obsession with annihilating ASICs and pools, you need to go make something that doesn't have those things.  No one in their right mind would launch your totally untested and unverified brainfarts onto this blockchain.  That's not how it works.  If you want to propose radical changes to the base protocol, you need to prove it works first by building it, putting it on a testnet and proving beyond all reasonable doubt that your concept is sound, not just blowing a load of hot air like you know exactly how to "fix" everything without consequence.  Or, alternatively, build it as a new layer on top of Bitcoin where no one can stop you.

My argument with your "improvements" (in the loosest possible sense of the word) isn't that "it is impossible to reach a consensus", it's that "your wholly theoretical and largely insane ideas will never find consensus".  All the things written about in that Lightning blog will undergo extensive and rigorous testing, even though they can't harm the base protocol in any way.  Then they'll be implemented because stuff built of top of Bitcoin doesn't need consensus.  These concepts, unlike your ideas, can and probably will happen.  They are also infinitely more likely to help move Bitcoin forward than anything you have ever come up with.  If you don't want to see those things come to fruition, too bad for you.  Those are the things people are freely choosing to work on.  Go cry a river because no one wants to dedicate their time or effort to develop your dumb ideas.  We don't care.  

So understand where the difference lies between us.  I'm supportive of legitimate improvements that have a decent likelihood of going live.  You and franky1 are proponents of things that won't happen in Bitcoin and would arguably make Bitcoin worse.  It doesn't matter if you think I'm a shill or not, this is the direction things are undeniably moving in.  Lightning is happening, no matter how many times either of you spout your inane drivel about it being a "failed project".  I suggest you get used to it.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: mindrust on September 17, 2018, 05:33:00 PM
It doesn't matter if you think I'm a shill or not, this is the direction things are undeniably moving in.  Lightning is happening, no matter how many times either of you spout your inane drivel about it being a "failed project".  I suggest you get used to it.

That's what I like the most about bitcoin. It is always a "money talks bullshit walks" situation. Retards like franky1 will spewing bullshit but the honey badger doesn't care. Bitcoin keeps dominating the industry no matter how hard they FUD.

Lightning just gets better with every passing day.


"#BTC #Bitcoin + #LightningNetwork + Autopilot + Splicing will cause more earth shattering changes than have happened in the last 500 years.
The invention of the internet and industrial revolution combined are NOTHING compared to whats to come."
https://twitter.com/LN_Master_Hub/status/1040783956075933699


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on September 17, 2018, 07:01:31 PM
im actually trying to use a flawed theory which i beleive that you are presuming to be true.... and im correcting you.

As usual, your beliefs are totally and utterly wrong.  .... because you're too busy spreading FUD  ... to absorb into your thick skull what's being said... but that's just how astoundingly broken your mind is.  
it is possible.
again learn factories

Learn that factories are basically a proposal at this point?  Learn that if there is a flaw with them that it would be promptly fixed?  Learn that their practical implementation hasn't even been finalised? Learn that you're a worthless troll and you're talking out of your arse?  Oh wait, we already knew that.




For anyone that wants to read some informed insights into future LN developments, rather than franky1's demented verbal flailings, there's a good blog here (https://blog.theabacus.io/lightning-network-2-0-b878b9bb356e?gi=d960353b7025) that goes into a lot (and I mean a lot) of detail.
Obviously, you are the troll here ...

Who are you? Obviously not a bitcoiner, a LN shill I suppose. Just Stop harassing people.

When it comes to improving bitcoin your only argument is "Nobody agrees", "It is impossible to reach a consensus about it" , "leave bitcoin unchanged", ...  and when people criticize your beloved LN you go all-in bullshitting and trolling. Honestly, aren't you a paid troller or something?

I checked your stupid reference, it is full of shit. No answer to liquidity, no answer to liveness, just a naive attempt for selling unproven hypothetical fantasies as "possible" workarounds for real problems that make LN a failed project eventually.
... you either can't or won't build anything that would make it better without sacrificing any of the qualities which genuine Bitcoin users actually appreciate.  The reason I approve of LN is because it's built on top in a new layer and doesn't compromise the base protocol.
Building a shit "on top of bitcoin" is not bad as long as it is not competing with bitcoin.

I understand, you as a shill, have no clue about what I'm talking about but try harder just once in your boring life:
Saying: "In our company we have built something on top of bitcoin that performs the job of bitcoin (book keeping of transactions) ways better and faster than bitcoin itself" is the most ridiculous claim ever (congrats Block Stream).

Scaling bitcoin off-chain won't happen unless by compromising its security and/or decentralization and/or anti-censorship features. The only decent option for a true cryptopunk  is improving bitcoin onchain, other proposals are void and out of the scope of cryptocurrency and bitcoin, competitors. Period.

BCH story is different: It is a wrong bitcoin improvement proposal. Increasing block size is not an ultimate scaling solution because of proximity premium and centralization consequences, though a mild increase in block size (or preferably decrease in block time) is ok as one of many possible improvements.


There should be an active and continuous process of improving bitcoin for catching up with the adoption rate instead of freezing it half dead to promote stupid off-chain proposals like LN.

I'm committed to this cause and will do my job in spite of shills like you. Frank is a true bitcoiner as well, he values bitcoin as a p2p electronic cash system and I find his insights very productive and useful and I'll consider almost all of his proposals in my work.

Anybody, no matter who, that claims bitcoin infeasible for such a continuous improvement is not a bitcoiner and will be kicked out of this ecosystem sooner or later and I personally do my best to guarantee this to happen ;)

Quote
So understand where the difference lies between us.  I'm supportive of legitimate improvements that have a decent likelihood of going live.  
Nonsense!
LN is neither legitimate nor an improvement to bitcoin. It is proprietary software developed by a for-profit company and it won't go live because there is no way for a second layer solution to compete with bitcoin, other than putting users in some sort of security/centralization/censorship/surveillance risk.  Instead of talking so much think a bit.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on September 17, 2018, 08:56:31 PM
*facepalm*

Building a shit "on top of bitcoin" is not bad as long as it is not competing with bitcoin.

There's a difference between "complementary to" and "competing with".  LN is the former, not the latter.  It's not competing with Bitcoin, it strengthens Bitcoin.  It gives users greater choice and new possibilities for how to transact.  But if you don't want to use it, don't.  It's up to you.


There should be an active and continuous process of improving bitcoin for catching up with the adoption rate instead of freezing it half dead to promote stupid off-chain proposals like LN.

There is an active process.  In case you hadn't noticed, Lightning has its own developers, while other developers are still working on sensible and risk-free improvements for the base protocol.  Schnorr sigs are one such improvement in the pipeline.  There are others too.  Look them up.  Again, just because no one gives a crap about your crude blocktime fiddling (which, by the way, had already been ruled out by the community several years before you showed up, which is why no one but you wants to work on it), doesn't mean development is being "frozen".  


It is proprietary software developed by a for-profit company

Proprietary?  As there are at least three different Lightning implementations, kindly enlighten us as to which of those companies is the owner of the trademark.  Oh, that's right, it's not proprietary at all.  It's free software, which is the complete and total opposite of proprietary software.  See the licence text from:
 
Blockstream's c-lightning (https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/commit/e6dfff3ba8f7f9eefd25816f8499871f0ed8568b)
Lightning Labs' neutrino (https://github.com/lightninglabs/neutrino/blob/master/LICENSE)
ACINQ's eclair (https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair/blob/d38f227b4238a27ee7ad81fd24fb52da2aba7238/eclair-core/pom.xml)

Not proprietary.  Get a clue.


Instead of talking so much think a bit.

You first.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on September 17, 2018, 10:16:37 PM
**double facepalm**

*facepalm*

Building a shit "on top of bitcoin" is not bad as long as it is not competing with bitcoin.

There's a difference between "complementary to" and "competing with".  LN is the former, not the latter.  It's not competing with Bitcoin, it strengthens Bitcoin.  It gives users greater choice and new possibilities for how to transact.  But if you don't want to use it, don't.  It's up to you.
Once you put a layer on a protocol to be used in exactly the same cases it has been designed for, you are competing with it. Bitcoin doesn't need any "complement" to keep track of cash transfer, it needs improvement both to become more robust and to utilize more resources and new technologies gradually and coherent with its adoption by masses.

Nobody is allowed for narrowing bitcoin use cases and replacing its daily usage with shitty centralized alternatives in the name of complementation.

Quote
There should be an active and continuous process of improving bitcoin for catching up with the adoption rate instead of freezing it half dead to promote stupid off-chain proposals like LN.
There is an active process.  In case you hadn't noticed, Lightning has its own developers, while other developers are still working on sensible and risk-free improvements for the base protocol.  Schnorr sigs are one such improvement in the pipeline.  There are others too.  Look them up.
No there isn't. You are hypocritically denying that the whole scaling problem is projected to LN which is not a part of bitcoin after all and we have centralization through pools and ASICs being overlooked, ...

Quote
Again, just because no one gives a crap about your crude blocktime fiddling (which, by the way, had already been ruled out by the community several years before you showed up, which is why no one but you wants to work on it), doesn't mean development is being "frozen".  
"Years ago", we had like 2% stall rate and now we have less than 0.04% i.e. 20 times better situation! With a minor improvement focused on better utilizing/prioritizing  miner-to-miner communications we can easily reach to 50 times better synchronization compared to 2011-2012.

Your argument is "because a decade ago some guy has said something about propagation delay, now we have to drop block time decrease proposals"!
Also Greg Maxwell is used to argue like you: "we have rejected this and that shit years ago, forget about it!".
But for me, the sole fact that a proposal has been rejected like 10 years ago is enough evidence that it should be reconsidered now.
 
Quote
It is proprietary software developed by a for-profit company
Proprietary?  As there are at least three different Lightning implementations, kindly enlighten us as to which of those companies is the owner of the trademark.  Oh, that's right, it's not proprietary at all.  It's free software, which is the complete and total opposite of proprietary software.  Not proprietary.  Get a clue.
Obviously, I know it is open source.

It is not enough, Chrome is an open source software but it is Google's Chrome . The same is true for LN, it is Block Stream's LN. It is funded and supported by a for-profit company. As an ugly sophisticated piece of software it enjoys an army of developers hired and paid for implementing a specification that is defined by a board aligned with its proprietary business strategy and philosophy. Let's be frank!


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on September 17, 2018, 11:16:23 PM
Obviously, I know it is open source.

It is not enough, Chrome is an open source software but it is Google's Chrome . The same is true for LN, it is Block Stream's LN. It is funded and supported by a for-profit company. As an ugly sophisticated piece of software it enjoys an army of developers hired and paid for implementing a specification that is defined by a board aligned with its proprietary business strategy and philosophy.

And yet, there's Lit.  A wholly non-commercial project for Lightning.  Tell us what the business strategy is there.


But for me, the sole fact that a proposal has been rejected like 10 years ago is enough evidence that it should be reconsidered now.

Yes, exactly, "for you".  As in, "no one else".  You are just one person impotently fighting the tide.  No one cares about your old ideas because everyone else is moving forwards and progressing together.  You are an insignificant nothing moving backwards alone.  Have fun with that.  Or go make a coin with franky1.  Then you can be two insignificant nothings going backwards together. 

You don't matter.  We're going forwards.  Lightning is happening.  It's as simple as that.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on September 18, 2018, 06:35:04 AM

But for me, the sole fact that a proposal has been rejected like 10 years ago is enough evidence that it should be reconsidered now.

Yes, exactly, "for you".  As in, "no one else".  You are just one person impotently fighting the tide.  No one cares about your old ideas because everyone else is moving forwards and progressing together.  You are an insignificant nothing moving backwards alone.  Have fun with that.  Or go make a coin with franky1.  Then you can be two insignificant nothings going backwards together.  

You don't matter.  We're going forwards.  Lightning is happening.  It's as simple as that.
Who are you to decide about who matters or not? Are you out of your mind? It is public domain, everybody matters, even a shill like you ;D

It is totally insane to call block time decrease an old idea. We have Moore's law, we are experiencing and learning continuously and the market is evolving. Nobody has a right to close cases arbitrarily and overtake bitcoin by claiming an exclusive right on determining its evolution path specially with a "leave bitcoin frozen" agenda.

This is technical discussion forum, your attitude is not productive for such a community, you better consider another place for your holy war against whatever you call FUD. In this place people have rights to discuss their ideas and propose changes and prefer to engage in productive and technical discussions rather than wasting their valuable time by confronting crusaders and anti-FUD warriors and shills.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 18, 2018, 07:33:57 AM
im actually trying to use a flawed theory which i beleive that you are presuming to be true.... and im correcting you.

As usual, your beliefs are totally and utterly wrong.  .... because you're too busy spreading FUD  ... to absorb into your thick skull what's being said... but that's just how astoundingly broken your mind is.  
it is possible.
again learn factories

Learn that factories are basically a proposal at this point?  Learn that if there is a flaw with them that it would be promptly fixed?  Learn that their practical implementation hasn't even been finalised? Learn that you're a worthless troll and you're talking out of your arse?  Oh wait, we already knew that.




For anyone that wants to read some informed insights into future LN developments, rather than franky1's demented verbal flailings, there's a good blog here (https://blog.theabacus.io/lightning-network-2-0-b878b9bb356e?gi=d960353b7025) that goes into a lot (and I mean a lot) of detail.
Obviously, you are the troll here ...

Who are you? Obviously not a bitcoiner, a LN shill I suppose. Just Stop harassing people.

When it comes to improving bitcoin your only argument is "Nobody agrees", "It is impossible to reach a consensus about it" , "leave bitcoin unchanged", ...  and when people criticize your beloved LN you go all-in bullshitting and trolling. Honestly, aren't you a paid troller or something?

I checked your stupid reference, it is full of shit. No answer to liquidity, no answer to liveness, just a naive attempt for selling unproven hypothetical fantasies as "possible" workarounds for real problems that make LN a failed project eventually.
... you either can't or won't build anything that would make it better without sacrificing any of the qualities which genuine Bitcoin users actually appreciate.  The reason I approve of LN is because it's built on top in a new layer and doesn't compromise the base protocol.
Building a shit "on top of bitcoin" is not bad as long as it is not competing with bitcoin.

I understand, you as a shill, have no clue about what I'm talking about but try harder just once in your boring life:
Saying: "In our company we have built something on top of bitcoin that performs the job of bitcoin (book keeping of transactions) ways better and faster than bitcoin itself" is the most ridiculous claim ever (congrats Block Stream).

Scaling bitcoin off-chain won't happen unless by compromising its security and/or decentralization and/or anti-censorship features. The only decent option for a true cryptopunk  is improving bitcoin onchain, other proposals are void and out of the scope of cryptocurrency and bitcoin, competitors. Period.

But how did Lightning compromise the network's security, and/or decentralization, and/or anti-censorship features on-chain? Lightning is a feature built using time locks, multisig addresses and storing the transactions locally until the user decides to broadcast the latest state of his Lightning channel like a normal on-chain transaction.

Quote
BCH story is different: It is a wrong bitcoin improvement proposal. Increasing block size is not an ultimate scaling solution because of proximity premium and centralization consequences, though a mild increase in block size (or preferably decrease in block time) is ok as one of many possible improvements.

I believe improving network latency should be first priority.

Quote
There should be an active and continuous process of improving bitcoin for catching up with the adoption rate instead of freezing it half dead to promote stupid off-chain proposals like LN.

Bitcoin's "fast adoption-rate" is over-stated. Where are the "full blocks" in Bitcoin Cash's 32mb block size limit? Supporters of that coin said there was "an urgent need" to increase the block size.

In Bitcoin, Segwit is doing fine.

Quote
I'm committed to this cause and will do my job in spite of shills like you. Frank is a true bitcoiner as well, he values bitcoin as a p2p electronic cash system and I find his insights very productive and useful and I'll consider almost all of his proposals in my work.

Anybody, no matter who, that claims bitcoin infeasible for such a continuous improvement is not a bitcoiner and will be kicked out of this ecosystem sooner or later and I personally do my best to guarantee this to happen ;)

Do not take the criticisms and the debates personally. We are here to learn, and we should continue to debate and discuss. If you are in the right side of the debate then time will prove you right.

Quote
Quote
So understand where the difference lies between us.  I'm supportive of legitimate improvements that have a decent likelihood of going live.  
Nonsense!
LN is neither legitimate nor an improvement to bitcoin. It is proprietary software developed by a for-profit company and it won't go live because there is no way for a second layer solution to compete with bitcoin, other than putting users in some sort of security/centralization/censorship/surveillance risk.  Instead of talking so much think a bit.

Propietary? You know that is a lie.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on September 18, 2018, 10:01:44 AM
Who are you to decide about who matters or not?

That's just it, though.  I'm not the one deciding that.  You are.  That's what you don't understand.  

You are the one freely choosing to be irrelevant by thinking you can dictate the direction of this project all by yourself, when literally everyone else is completely ignoring your blocktime ideas because they don't care and think that Lightning is the right course of action.  Blame me all you want, I'm not the one making them not care about your ideas.  They just don't.  That's how it is.  If you want more on-chain throughput, there are other forks which cater to that.  Or you can make your own.  Go start a thread in altcoins if you're serious.

The beauty of open source, permissionless systems is that if you don't like the path everyone else is following, you can forge your own.  But consequently, you have to accept that you're on your own if you don't like what everyone else is doing.  And I don't know how many more times I need to say it, but if you really do think you've got the right idea (you clearly haven't, but I don't expect that to stop you), go ahead and make whatever crap it is you're talking about and prove it's the right path.  I don't know what else there is to say.  Go make it.  See who runs it.  Stop whining that no one has shown the slightest interest in making it for you.  We heard you the first dozen times, but still no one cares.  

Not only did Lightning make the more convincing technical arguments, it also sparked the imaginations of people who realised they could extend the functionality even further and build even greater things, so that's what we've opted to do.  Tinkering with the blocktime simply doesn't achieve that same inspirational and transformative effect.  By all means belligerently stand there and keep pissing into the wind if you like, but things are set in motion now and there's a certain impetus to it that you simply can't fight against.  The work is already well underway.


This is technical discussion forum, your attitude is not productive for such a community, you better consider another place for your holy war against whatever you call FUD. In this place people have rights to discuss their ideas and propose changes and prefer to engage in productive and technical discussions rather than wasting their valuable time by confronting crusaders and anti-FUD warriors and shills.

Excuse me?  Your sole purpose in this thread is to boldly declare that all of the extraordinary work that has gone into Lightning so far is a total waste of time!  If that's your idea of "productive" then I'm afraid there's nothing we can do to help you.  You're way too far gone in the head.  

There is nothing "productive" about you telling us everything that's happening right now is wrong, particularly when you haven't got anything better to offer.  Your "attitude" is that you are somehow entitled to the skill and talent of other developers in the community to bring your vision to life.  That's just not happening.  Developers aren't a free resource you get to leech from if your ideas aren't compatible.  Sorry if my pointing out the glaringly obvious is causing you so much distress.  If anything, I'm trying to save your valuable time by suggesting it might not be the best idea to keep pointlessly smashing your head against a brick wall in a desperate attempt to get attention for your proposed sad and lonely altcoin which you can't even get off the ground.  

We're not making your crap, so either do it the easy way and accept that no one cares, or go make it by yourself, then come back when you have something to show and learn the hard way that no one cares.  The rest of us are quite liking the sound of this Lightning stuff and are watching intently to see how it all unfolds.  


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on September 18, 2018, 11:33:39 AM
Scaling bitcoin off-chain won't happen unless by compromising its security and/or decentralization and/or anti-censorship features. The only decent option for a true cryptopunk  is improving bitcoin onchain, other proposals are void and out of the scope of cryptocurrency and bitcoin, competitors. Period.
But how did Lightning compromise the network's security, and/or decentralization, and/or anti-censorship features on-chain? Lightning is a feature built using time locks, multisig addresses and storing the transactions locally until the user decides to broadcast the latest state of his Lightning channel like a normal on-chain transaction.
Lightning adoption leads to a hub and spoke topology to fix liquidity, liveness and routing problems and proposed mitigations are immature and lead to a series of new and even more complicated problems.
Generally speaking it is very unlikely to have a new decentralized/permissionless monetary technology invented every 10 years. We have to unleash potentials of bitcoin for a few more decades instead of trying to push it out of transaction space by stacking up more protocols on top of it.

A devil centralized exchange is far less harmful to bitcoin than LN, imo. The latter competes with bitcoin as an alternative payment processing method and leaves no space or incentive for bitcoin to evolve.

Scaling is both a problem and a challenge for bitcoin, projecting it to off-chain is harmful for both: the problem won't be solved and bitcoin won't mature and evolve.

A true bitcoiner understands it and is naturally against off-chain proposals.

We believe in bitcoin as a revolutionary alternative payment system.

We neither GAS to a trojan like Buterin who makes stupid analogy with high school thermodynamics and talks about a magical "trilemma" that prevents us from having a secure/decentralized/efficient crypto system nor to few mid-range hackers who have missed the forest and seeing just few trees have lost the direction.

We should never ever give up with bitcoin as a p2p electronic cash system.

Quote
Quote
There should be an active and continuous process of improving bitcoin for catching up with the adoption rate instead of freezing it half dead to promote stupid off-chain proposals like LN.

Bitcoin's "fast adoption-rate" is over-stated. Where are the "full blocks" in Bitcoin Cash's 32mb block size limit? Supporters of that coin said there was "an urgent need" to increase the block size.

In Bitcoin, Segwit is doing fine.
I do agree. And it is why we don't need off-chain scaling solutions or any scaling solution at all as an emergency call.



EDIT:
@Doomad, stop trolling and saying nonsense about who is who and your clan being how powerful.  Told you, it is a discussion forum. Here people try to convince each other by reasoning.  



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 19, 2018, 06:33:23 AM
Scaling bitcoin off-chain won't happen unless by compromising its security and/or decentralization and/or anti-censorship features. The only decent option for a true cryptopunk  is improving bitcoin onchain, other proposals are void and out of the scope of cryptocurrency and bitcoin, competitors. Period.
But how did Lightning compromise the network's security, and/or decentralization, and/or anti-censorship features on-chain? Lightning is a feature built using time locks, multisig addresses and storing the transactions locally until the user decides to broadcast the latest state of his Lightning channel like a normal on-chain transaction.
Lightning adoption leads to a hub and spoke topology to fix liquidity, liveness and routing problems and proposed mitigations are immature and lead to a series of new and even more complicated problems.

But what "complicated problems"? The hub and spoke model would make Lightning more simple in my opinion. I believe the Lightning Network would be better if it used a hub and spoke model in the beginning before it takes a more decentralized model as it grows.


Quote
A devil centralized exchange is far less harmful to bitcoin than LN, imo. The latter competes with bitcoin as an alternative payment processing method and leaves no space or incentive for bitcoin to evolve.

It does not "compete". It's a feature you either want to use or not to use.

Quote
Scaling is both a problem and a challenge for bitcoin, projecting it to off-chain is harmful for both: the problem won't be solved and bitcoin won't mature and evolve.

You are saying something for the sake of saying something. Tell us why and stop gaslighting.

Quote
A true bitcoiner understands it and is naturally against off-chain proposals.

Face palm. If you understood what the Lightning "Network" is, it is a "collection" of "delayed" on-chain transactions.

Quote
We believe in bitcoin as a revolutionary alternative payment system.

I disagree. Bitcoin is more than a "payment system". Bitcoin is hard money, and the base layer should be held very carefully by the Core developers not to break it.

Quote
We neither GAS to a trojan like Buterin who makes stupid analogy with high school thermodynamics and talks about a magical "trilemma" that prevents us from having a secure/decentralized/efficient crypto system nor to few mid-range hackers who have missed the forest and seeing just few trees have lost the direction.

But the blockchain trillemma is there. You cannot change one without changing one of the other two.

Quote
We should never ever give up with bitcoin as a p2p electronic cash system.

You can use Dogecoin if you want a real p2p electronic cash system. Bitcoin is hard money that will become a world reserve currency.

Quote
Quote
Quote
There should be an active and continuous process of improving bitcoin for catching up with the adoption rate instead of freezing it half dead to promote stupid off-chain proposals like LN.

Bitcoin's "fast adoption-rate" is over-stated. Where are the "full blocks" in Bitcoin Cash's 32mb block size limit? Supporters of that coin said there was "an urgent need" to increase the block size.

In Bitcoin, Segwit is doing fine.
I do agree. And it is why we don't need off-chain scaling solutions or any scaling solution at all as an emergency call.

Ok but that does not give you the right to tell developers to stop or take away their right to develop any feature they want for Bitcoin.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on September 19, 2018, 09:14:08 AM

Lightning adoption leads to a hub and spoke topology to fix liquidity, liveness and routing problems and proposed mitigations are immature and lead to a series of new and even more complicated problems.

But what "complicated problems"? The hub and spoke model would make Lightning more simple in my opinion. I believe the Lightning Network would be better if it used a hub and spoke model in the beginning before it takes a more decentralized model as it grows.
Really? You don't understand what is wrong with a hub and spoke model and still you are arguing about bitcoin?  :o
It is exactly what I'm trying to prove:
This whole LN thing is an outlier. It doesn't belong to cryptocurrency discourse and its advocates are not a member of this movement. You need to remind them about why and how good is a p2p and decentralized system.

FYI: One real world implementation of hub and spoke model is traditional banking system. This model is vulnerable to centralization, censorship, state control, fault intolerance, ...

Quote
Quote
A devil centralized exchange is far less harmful to bitcoin than LN, imo. The latter competes with bitcoin as an alternative payment processing method and leaves no space or incentive for bitcoin to evolve.

It does not "compete". It's a feature you either want to use or not to use.
Are you kidding? You are suggesting a fast and cheap alternative to bitcoin and you say it is not a competition? What the hell is it then? A "complementary"? Give us a break.

Quote
Quote
Scaling is both a problem and a challenge for bitcoin, projecting it to off-chain is harmful for both: the problem won't be solved and bitcoin won't mature and evolve.

You are saying something for the sake of saying something. Tell us why and stop gaslighting.
You are quoting something for the sake of quoting something, no comprehension.

Scaling is a problem a weakness, but at the same time it is a challenge an opportunity for bitcoin to mature and become stronger and better. When you take a detour by putting a second layer on it with obvious centralization consequences, you are jeopardizing both users and bitcoin. People won't get the service they deserve and bitcoin won't have the chance to improve and evolve.
 
Now you get it?

Quote
Quote
A true bitcoiner understands it and is naturally against off-chain proposals.
Face palm. If you understood what the Lightning "Network" is, it is a "collection" of "delayed" on-chain transactions.
*Double face palm* Lightning is a couple of on-chain open/flush operations plus a collection of off-chain transactions.  

Quote
Quote
We believe in bitcoin as a revolutionary alternative payment system.
I disagree. Bitcoin is more than a "payment system". Bitcoin is hard money, and the base layer should be held very carefully by the Core developers not to break it.
How in the hell being hard money is more than being a payment system? And Who gave this right to you and your friends to redefine bitcoin this ridiculous way? AFAIK bitcoin thing started with a white paper titled: bitcoin a p2p electronic cash system.

I understand, people like you are just worried about your money and your utilities you don't have any incentive or reason to take a part in the resistance but what makes me angry with guys like you is the hypocritic side of your story: your insistence on taking over bitcoin by pretending to be not only a believer in but also the savior of bitcoin.

What stops people like you to set a 24 hours block time and 100 KB block size to make bitcoin super-hard? ... Huh?

US Federal Reserves 'Hub' can wait like a week for their multi billion dollars 'flush' transactions with Saudi Arabia Central 'Hub' to be confirmed on your super secure blockchain and your LN 'Tire 2' hubs barely need any flush operations because their 'customers' need just a single (if any) LN channel to be established in their entire life.

Bitcoin is not just an alternative payment system, it is  an answer to 2008 financial collapse, a censor free, decentralized way of issuing, holding and transferring money with a resistance axiom inherent in its every cell.

The most useless practice always is arguing about axioms. My bitcoin is a socio-economic revolutionary movement, yours is a hard money reserved in ultra hubs that moves barely if ever. Mine is original yours is fake. Period.
Quote
Quote
We neither GAS to a trojan like Buterin who makes stupid analogy with high school thermodynamics and talks about a magical "trilemma" that prevents us from having a secure/decentralized/efficient crypto system nor to few mid-range hackers who have missed the forest and seeing just few trees have lost the direction.
But the blockchain trillemma is there. You cannot change one without changing one of the other two.
Who says that? An undereducated ex-teenager whose greatest achievement is suggesting a stupid Turing complete machine instead of bitcoin's decent automa? The same achievement that ended to DAO hack scandal? Or a hypocrite who scammed millions of dollars by initiating a Pow coin while he was falling in love with PoS?



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on September 19, 2018, 01:16:19 PM
Scaling is a problem a weakness, but at the same time it is a challenge an opportunity for bitcoin to mature and become stronger and better. When you take a detour by putting a second layer on it with obvious centralization consequences, you are jeopardizing both users and bitcoin. People won't get the service they deserve and bitcoin won't have the chance to improve and evolve.

-IF- Lightning were to become centralised (and there's no guarantee that's going to occur), then only the second layer is centralised and the base blockchain is still decentralised.  Starting to get it yet?  This course of action preserves the decentralisation of Bitcoin.  That's why people like it.


What stops people like you to set a 24 hours block time and 100 KB block size to make bitcoin super-hard? ... Huh?

Consensus.  Users, miners and developers have to support a proposed change, otherwise it doesn't change.  This really isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be.  If you can find enough support for your ideas, they will be adopted.  But that very much remains to be seen.

Say we did halve the blocktime to 5 minutes, effectively doubling throughput, but consequently providing the same multiplier to the speed at which the blockchain grows.  It's not that much of an increase in capacity, but it places more of a burden on the resources required by full nodes.  In comparison, Lightning could easily provide x20 or more capacity with zero cost to full nodes.  That's what you have to compete with.  You can't come up with anything like a x20 or more increase by fiddling with the blocktime, unless you set it to something ridiculous like 30 seconds.  I wish you the best of luck if you think for a second that's a viable direction.  You're going to need it.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on September 19, 2018, 06:34:29 PM
In comparison, Lightning could easily provide x20 or more capacity with zero cost to full nodes.  That's what you have to compete with.  You can't come up with anything like a x20 or more increase by fiddling with the blocktime, unless you set it to something ridiculous like 30 seconds.

He might argue that second layer scaling solutions need some time to grow and become popular while Bitcoin is already accepted by some merchants. As you mentioned, they don't have any negative impact on the Bitcoin network itself even if they are centralised. Once you make a huge change (e.g. change the blocktime), it won't be easy to roll it back. There is no problem with using multiple layers either. No need to argue which vision is better.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on September 19, 2018, 07:22:46 PM
Scaling is a problem a weakness, but at the same time it is a challenge an opportunity for bitcoin to mature and become stronger and better. When you take a detour by putting a second layer on it with obvious centralization consequences, you are jeopardizing both users and bitcoin. People won't get the service they deserve and bitcoin won't have the chance to improve and evolve.

-IF- Lightning were to become centralised (and there's no guarantee that's going to occur), then only the second layer is centralised and the base blockchain is still decentralised.  Starting to get it yet?  This course of action preserves the decentralisation of Bitcoin.  That's why people like it.
There exists no _IF_  and it is not just about LN, any second layer off-chain scaling solution is doomed to centralization.

What I'm trying to say (and you should start to understand) is the fact that LN is a distraction and postpones on-chain improvements.

Quote
What stops people like you to set a 24 hours block time and 100 KB block size to make bitcoin super-hard? ... Huh?
Consensus.  Users, miners and developers have to support a proposed change, otherwise it doesn't change.  This really isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be.  If you can find support for your ideas, they will be adopted.  But that very much remains to be seen.
You are used to say this, ever and ever, not an answer tho. I'm asking @Wind_Furry why shouldn't we 'harden' bitcoin even more if we think its main utility is to be 'hard money'?

Quote
Say we did halve the blocktime to 5 minutes, effectively doubling throughput, but consequently providing the same multiplier to the speed at which the blockchain grows.  It's not that much of an increase in capacity, but it places more of a burden on the resources required by full nodes.  In comparison, Lightning could easily provide x20 or more capacity with zero cost to full nodes.  That's what you have to compete with.  You can't come up with anything like a x20 or more increase by fiddling with the blocktime, unless you set it to something ridiculous like 30 seconds.  I wish you the best of luck if you think for a second that's a viable direction.  You're going to need it.
First of all this "resources required by full nodes" thing is irrelevant, nobody cares about the cost of a multi terabyte HDD ($100) and if he does he should back-off. It has been 10 years and Moore's law has done a lot with hardware costs.

More importantly, I never said and don't think that block time decrease is an ultimate scaling solution.
I think, a proper decrease in block time, combined with some additional smart techniques (like separation of witness data from transaction body,  using schnorr signatures, improving bitcoin relay network, ... ) is very helpful and buys time for us to catch-up with bitcoin adoption rate for next 2-3 years.

I strongly believe reaching to 70-100 tps on-chain throughput without a radical change in bitcoin is possible.

Although 70-100 tps is not enough for mass adoption of bitcoin, once we have bought time we would be able to tackle the situation with pools and centralization of mining and thereafter sharding would be our ultimate scaling solution. Sharding is not practical with centralized mining but in a decentralized mining scene with tens of thousands of solo miners, having like 100 shards each with 100 tps throughput is practical.

A committed group of developers  backed by a resurrected community both devoted to basic bitcoin axioms is what we need for this strategy to be realized we need neither opportunist traders nor technocrat developers. Vision comes first.

Finally, suppose I have no proposal neither for short-term nor for long-term to tackle bitcoin scaling problem, then what? We should simply give-up with bitcoin as medium of exchange and push it out from day to day usage and make a reserve thing out of it?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on September 19, 2018, 09:51:16 PM
There exists no _IF_  and it is not just about LN, any second layer off-chain scaling solution is doomed to centralization.

And we should just take your word on that because...?  


First of all this "resources required by full nodes" thing is irrelevant, nobody cares about the cost of a multi terabyte HDD ($100)

This could be why people aren't taking you seriously.  Network latency and bandwidth are the resources people are primarily concerned with.  Not Storage.  


A committed group of developers  backed by a resurrected community both devoted to basic bitcoin axioms is what we need for this strategy to be realized

Correction:  that's what you need for your strategy to succeed.  Lighting already has numerous committed groups of developers, backed with the support of the community, devoted to a healthy balance between both on-chain and off-chain improvements.  That's why Lightning is happening and your strategy isn't.  Telling us you don't like the current strategy won't make us suddenly like yours better.  And it definitely won't make us start building it for you.  Pay someone to make it if you're that desperate.  


suppose I have no proposal neither for short-term nor for long-term to tackle bitcoin scaling problem, then what?

Are you even hearing yourself right now?  We don't need anything from you.  You are not here to "save us".  Your "proposals" are not a required factor in the equation.  I can't even begin to imagine how self-aggrandising you must be to genuinely believe Bitcoin can't move forward without your input.  Get over yourself.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 20, 2018, 05:53:57 AM

Lightning adoption leads to a hub and spoke topology to fix liquidity, liveness and routing problems and proposed mitigations are immature and lead to a series of new and even more complicated problems.

But what "complicated problems"? The hub and spoke model would make Lightning more simple in my opinion. I believe the Lightning Network would be better if it used a hub and spoke model in the beginning before it takes a more decentralized model as it grows.
Really? You don't understand what is wrong with a hub and spoke model and still you are arguing about bitcoin?  :o
It is exactly what I'm trying to prove:
This whole LN thing is an outlier. It doesn't belong to cryptocurrency discourse and its advocates are not a member of this movement. You need to remind them about why and how good is a p2p and decentralized system.

FYI: One real world implementation of hub and spoke model is traditional banking system. This model is vulnerable to centralization, censorship, state control, fault intolerance, ...

Read what I posted before you jump to conclusions. I said "in the beginning" of Lightning's development because it would be more efficient and less complicated. The opposite of what you said. But that's only my opinion.

Quote
Quote
Quote
A devil centralized exchange is far less harmful to bitcoin than LN, imo. The latter competes with bitcoin as an alternative payment processing method and leaves no space or incentive for bitcoin to evolve.

It does not "compete". It's a feature you either want to use or not to use.
Are you kidding? You are suggesting a fast and cheap alternative to bitcoin and you say it is not a competition? What the hell is it then? A "complementary"? Give us a break.

No because you need Bitcoin to use the Lightning Network. ::)

Quote
Quote
Quote
Scaling is both a problem and a challenge for bitcoin, projecting it to off-chain is harmful for both: the problem won't be solved and bitcoin won't mature and evolve.

You are saying something for the sake of saying something. Tell us why and stop gaslighting.
You are quoting something for the sake of quoting something, no comprehension.

Read your own post. I was replying to it.

Quote
Scaling is a problem a weakness, but at the same time it is a challenge an opportunity for bitcoin to mature and become stronger and better. When you take a detour by putting a second layer on it with obvious centralization consequences, you are jeopardizing both users and bitcoin. People won't get the service they deserve and bitcoin won't have the chance to improve and evolve.
 
Now you get it?

Yet what do you propose? Bigger blocks? Shorter confirmation times? It does have its own trade-offs obviously.

If there were "centralization consequences in Lighnting, it will be "off-chain". The base layer will remain decentralized.

Quote
Quote
Quote
A true bitcoiner understands it and is naturally against off-chain proposals.
Face palm. If you understood what the Lightning "Network" is, it is a "collection" of "delayed" on-chain transactions.
*Double face palm* Lightning is a couple of on-chain open/flush operations plus a collection of off-chain transactions.  

Like a normal transaction once broadcasted on-chain?

Quote
Quote
Quote
We believe in bitcoin as a revolutionary alternative payment system.
I disagree. Bitcoin is more than a "payment system". Bitcoin is hard money, and the base layer should be held very carefully by the Core developers not to break it.
How in the hell being hard money is more than being a payment system? And Who gave this right to you and your friends to redefine bitcoin this ridiculous way? AFAIK bitcoin thing started with a white paper titled: bitcoin a p2p electronic cash system.

Where is Satoshi, and what is this talk of "right"? The same could be asked to you.

Plus is the white paper the bible of Bitcoin? Yes? Then ok, Dogecoin should be a coin perfect for you.

Quote
I understand, people like you are just worried about your money and your utilities you don't have any incentive or reason to take a part in the resistance but what makes me angry with guys like you is the hypocritic side of your story: your insistence on taking over bitcoin by pretending to be not only a believer in but also the savior of bitcoin.

How would YOU save Bitcoin? By reducing confirmation times or increasing the block size irregardless of trade-offs?

Quote
What stops people like you to set a 24 hours block time and 100 KB block size to make bitcoin super-hard? ... Huh?

What about a 1 second block time and an unlimited block size. You would love that. Huh?

Quote
US Federal Reserves 'Hub' can wait like a week for their multi billion dollars 'flush' transactions with Saudi Arabia Central 'Hub' to be confirmed on your super secure blockchain and your LN 'Tire 2' hubs barely need any flush operations because their 'customers' need just a single (if any) LN channel to be established in their entire life.

US Federal Reserve to start using LN? Hahaha. If that would happen, which I do not believe will, wouldn't that be a "win" for LN as an alternative for consumer "coffee payments"?

Quote
Bitcoin is not just an alternative payment system, it is  an answer to 2008 financial collapse, a censor free, decentralized way of issuing, holding and transferring money with a resistance axiom inherent in its every cell.

Hard money. I already said it. You are going around in circles.

Quote
The most useless practice always is arguing about axioms. My bitcoin is a socio-economic revolutionary movement, yours is a hard money reserved in ultra hubs that moves barely if ever. Mine is original yours is fake. Period.

No. Hard money, a real valuable, provably scarce asset that is expensive to attack, modify, and highly secure in the base layer.

You want to change it at the base layer because you want a fast consumer payments system.

Quote
Quote
Quote
We neither GAS to a trojan like Buterin who makes stupid analogy with high school thermodynamics and talks about a magical "trilemma" that prevents us from having a secure/decentralized/efficient crypto system nor to few mid-range hackers who have missed the forest and seeing just few trees have lost the direction.
But the blockchain trillemma is there. You cannot change one without changing one of the other two.
Who says that? An undereducated ex-teenager whose greatest achievement is suggesting a stupid Turing complete machine instead of bitcoin's decent automa? The same achievement that ended to DAO hack scandal? Or a hypocrite who scammed millions of dollars by initiating a Pow coin while he was falling in love with PoS?

Irrelevant. Do not attack the person, attack the argument.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on September 20, 2018, 07:18:27 AM
suppose I have no proposal neither for short-term nor for long-term to tackle bitcoin scaling problem, then what?

Are you even hearing yourself right now?  We don't need anything from you.  You are not here to "save us".  Your "proposals" are not a required factor in the equation.  I can't even begin to imagine how self-aggrandising you must be to genuinely believe Bitcoin can't move forward without your input.  Get over yourself.

Here we go. You have already proved yourself as a LN shill.

Told you, this forum is not about whose pockets is deeper and can hire more shills or whose clan is bigger. I was saying that if I had no proposals we would find some, if I'm wrong somebody should be right, bitcoin scaling should be taken care of.

I'm now realizing the truth about you, you are hired, I don't know by whom but I'm absolutely sure you are hired for this job: insulting and humiliating whoever is not satisfied with your LN clan, I'm officially accusing you of being a hired troll.

I'm a respected forum member who is contributing to problems like centralization and scaling in bitcoin, Who are you? A ninja hired to assassinate whoever your master doesn't like to talk?

There exists no _IF_  and it is not just about LN, any second layer off-chain scaling solution is doomed to centralization.
And we should just take your word on that because...?  
Because even a hired ninja like you should read a thread before terrorizing people.

Quote
First of all this "resources required by full nodes" thing is irrelevant, nobody cares about the cost of a multi terabyte HDD ($100)
This could be why people aren't taking you seriously.  Network latency and bandwidth are the resources people are primarily concerned with.  Not Storage.

What's this a joke? Network latency is a resource  ;D
I have dedicated topics about network propagation delay, proximity premium, ... and you are teaching me about these? You were the one who mentioned capacity and I answered you properly.
As of network latency (which is a problem and not a resource) I have discussed it many times and recently I have shown how super-safe is current situation with less than 0.04% stall rate while bitcoin could live secure with like 2% orphans.

Do you understand what I'm talking about or we should expect more rude and worthless comments from you?

Quote
A committed group of developers  backed by a resurrected community both devoted to basic bitcoin axioms is what we need for this strategy to be realized
Correction:  that's what you need for your strategy to succeed.  Lighting already has numerous committed groups of developers, backed with the support of the community, devoted to a healthy balance between both on-chain and off-chain improvements.  That's why Lightning is happening and your strategy isn't.  Telling us you don't like the current strategy won't make us suddenly like yours better.  And it definitely won't make us start building it for you.  Pay someone to make it if you're that desperate.  
So, you got a big clan ... good for you ... I afraid, Bill Gates got a much a bigger clan and will beat you sooner or later  ;)

Nobody asked YOU (now I'm talking to your master) or your stupid mid-range programmers to do anything,  don't take yourself that serious.
 
I just posted here when I observed you are arrogantly trolling against @franky1. I think people should be free to communicate and discuss and nobody has a right to attack them like what you do.

Unfortunately, mods are failing to do their job in this forum, they are biased and busy. Biased in favor of a "focus on LN and keep bitcoin frozen" strategy and busy making money I suppose. It is why I have to waste my time arguing with a person like you.




Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: spartacusrex on September 20, 2018, 08:38:31 AM
I'm now realizing the truth about you, you are hired, I don't know by whom but I'm absolutely sure you are hired for this job: insulting and humiliating whoever is not satisfied with your LN clan, I'm officially accusing you of being a hired troll.

Take a breath Aliashraf. This forum has a way of getting people excited .. something about the mindset of us programmers and mathematicians mixed with a healthy dose of money.. Just make your case. People on this forum can distinguish the good stuff, from the poison, without requiring you to get into a headbanging contest with anyone who appears to disagree.

I'm a respected forum member who is contributing to problems like centralization and scaling in bitcoin, Who are you?

DoomMAD's one of the most respected members of this forum.

Unfortunately, mods are failing to do their job in this forum, they are biased and busy. Biased in favor of a "focus on LN and keep bitcoin frozen" strategy and busy making money I suppose. It is why I have to waste my time arguing with a person like you.

I wish you wouldn't waste so much of everybody else's time arguing.. You derail pretty much every thread you join.

---------------------------------------

BACK TO LIGHTNING.

DoomMad's point about attempting to get x20 on lightning for every on chain transaction is particularly interesting..  

x20 is a lot, but not enough to sort us out to VISA levels.. but if you then throw in the Channel Factories...

Channel factories allow you to create the Lightning channels without going on chain. So we might expect 20 Lightning channels from a single  Channel factory.. and 20 transactions from each Lightning Channel, before requiring an on-chain transaction.

Now we have x20 x20 = x400.

So the current 10 txn/s on Bitcoin, with nothing more than clever scripting, could actually represent 4000 txn/s off chain.

That's more like it. And NOW if you did double the blocksize (or halve the blocktime..), to allow 20 txns/s on-chain, we'd be getting 8000 txns/s off-chain.

What's not to like !?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on September 20, 2018, 02:14:31 PM
Take a breath Aliashraf. ...
I'm cool. Mind your business.

Quote

DoomMad's point about attempting to get x20 on lightning for every on chain transaction is particularly interesting..  

x20 is a lot, but not enough to sort us out to VISA levels.. but if you then throw in the Channel Factories...

Channel factories allow you to create the Lightning channels without going on chain. So we might expect 20 Lightning channels from a single  Channel factory.. and 20 transactions from each Lightning Channel, before requiring an on-chain transaction.

Now we have x20 x20 = x400.

So the current 10 txn/s on Bitcoin, with nothing more than clever scripting, could actually represent 4000 txn/s off chain.

That's more like it. And NOW if you did double the blocksize (or halve the blocktime..), to allow 20 txns/s on-chain, we'd be getting 8000 txns/s off-chain.

What's not to like !?
Ok enjoy LN, I'd like to stick with bitcoin.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: JayJuanGee on September 20, 2018, 09:19:29 PM
Take a breath Aliashraf. ...
I'm cool. Mind your business.

Quote

DoomMad's point about attempting to get x20 on lightning for every on chain transaction is particularly interesting..  

x20 is a lot, but not enough to sort us out to VISA levels.. but if you then throw in the Channel Factories...

Channel factories allow you to create the Lightning channels without going on chain. So we might expect 20 Lightning channels from a single  Channel factory.. and 20 transactions from each Lightning Channel, before requiring an on-chain transaction.

Now we have x20 x20 = x400.

So the current 10 txn/s on Bitcoin, with nothing more than clever scripting, could actually represent 4000 txn/s off chain.

That's more like it. And NOW if you did double the blocksize (or halve the blocktime..), to allow 20 txns/s on-chain, we'd be getting 8000 txns/s off-chain.

What's not to like !?
Ok enjoy LN, I'd like to stick with bitcoin.

Lightning network is pegged to bitcoin, you dumb ass, and it is voluntary whether you want to use such second layer, as you seem to already know.

As Lightning network expands, it is likely that a lot of the LN naysayers are going to end up using LN because it is going to become more convenient in terms of fees and transaction times, and just the expansion of the space in that direction.  Of course, this could take 5-10 years before channels becomes so wide-spread that even the disinformation spreading fucktards, such as yourself, are kind of forced kicking and screaming into a their own denial participation in which they assert that they were "never really opposed to LN" blah blah blah.. reframing history... as shill trolltards frequently tend to do.   :D :D :D


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 21, 2018, 06:23:45 AM
Is Bitcoin Cash also developing a layer-2, off-chain solution that would "sit" on top of the base layer? I believe that would make a stronger debate for the development of the Lightning Network. It is something that the big blockers might not admit.

https://twitter.com/jihanwu/status/1041691310367760384?s=21

Quote
BCH will continue its roadmap to build electronical cash on base protocol and encouraging permissionless innovation in layer-2. I see lots of buidlers are working so hard! Fake Satoshi can never stop us.

What would be the point of bigger blocks?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: ETFbitcoin on September 21, 2018, 06:41:40 AM
Is Bitcoin Cash also developing a layer-2, off-chain solution that would "sit" on top of the base layer? I believe that would make a stronger debate for the development of the Lightning Network. It is something that the big blockers might not admit.

https://twitter.com/jihanwu/status/1041691310367760384?s=21

Quote
BCH will continue its roadmap to build electronical cash on base protocol and encouraging permissionless innovation in layer-2. I see lots of buidlers are working so hard! Fake Satoshi can never stop us.

What would be the point of bigger blocks?


I'd bet they would make their own 2nd-layer which might be clone of LN/Raiden Network and forcing 0-fee on it's protocol, then claim they have better on-chain and off-chain scaling.

But i wouldn't listen to people with lots of controversial. I wonder what's opinion of actual BCH developer/contributor.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: aliashraf on September 21, 2018, 08:33:57 AM
Take a breath Aliashraf. ...
I'm cool. Mind your business.

Quote

DoomMad's point about attempting to get x20 on lightning for every on chain transaction is particularly interesting..  

x20 is a lot, but not enough to sort us out to VISA levels.. but if you then throw in the Channel Factories...

Channel factories allow you to create the Lightning channels without going on chain. So we might expect 20 Lightning channels from a single  Channel factory.. and 20 transactions from each Lightning Channel, before requiring an on-chain transaction.

Now we have x20 x20 = x400.

So the current 10 txn/s on Bitcoin, with nothing more than clever scripting, could actually represent 4000 txn/s off chain.

That's more like it. And NOW if you did double the blocksize (or halve the blocktime..), to allow 20 txns/s on-chain, we'd be getting 8000 txns/s off-chain.

What's not to like
Ok enjoy LN, I'd like to stick with bitcoin.

Lightning network is pegged to bitcoin, you dumb ass, and it is voluntary whether you want to use such second layer, as you seem to already know.

As Lightning network expands, it is likely that a lot of the LN naysayers are going to end up using LN because it is going to become more convenient in terms of fees and transaction times, and just the expansion of the space in that direction.  Of course, this could take 5-10 years before channels becomes so wide-spread that even the disinformation spreading fucktards, such as yourself, are kind of forced kicking and screaming into a their own denial participation in which they assert that they were "never really opposed to LN" blah blah blah.. reframing history... as shill trolltards frequently tend to do.   :D :D :D
For a 'legendary' in btctalk you are amazingly ignorant.  ;D

We are now using fiat. Does it make fiat the ultimate monetary system?  
Google alone  switches almost 50% of Internet page referral traffic, is it the true Internet?

I have no idea whether retards like you would succeed to bury bitcoin under multiple layers of stupidity (LN, factories, banks, whatever) or not, but I'm aware of the fact that ignorance has always a definite chance to get mainstream at least for a while, but how in the hell it would help covering the ugly face of an illiterate person who ruins a beautiful idea?

I won't engage in this discussion anymore because people like you (in the most optimistic scenario) are not able to generalize and think abstract.  

In dirty scenarios, we are mostly dealing with paid trolls, hired by bitcoin whales who are against any discussion and reasoning practice in the community because it may hurt the reputation of bitcoin and they may lose a few bucks. It is why they have started the infamous "anti-FUD" campaign in public sphere by assassination of advocates and authors.

Either way, stay tuned, we got still some cards to play, obviously other than arguing with you.  ;)



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on September 21, 2018, 09:37:29 AM
What would be the point of bigger blocks?

What would be the point of Bitcoin Cash then? The Lightning Network could be used without SegWit but it would cause a lot of problems (mainly transactions getting malleated). We can easily increase the blocksize any time we want but decreasing it would be nearly impossible.

Introducing SegWit was much wiser move since it increased the maximum block weight to about 4 MB. Oh, don't forget that SegWit killed AsicBoost. Guess who loses money because of that.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on September 21, 2018, 10:42:22 AM
For a 'legendary' in btctalk you are amazingly ignorant.  ;D

That's the interesting thing about perspective.  It's often the person who believes others are being ignorant when, in fact, they are the one who is totally missing the point.


I have no idea whether retards like you would succeed to bury bitcoin under multiple layers of stupidity

Supporting Bitcoin with layers of revolutionary and inspirational technology, you mean?  Again, perspective.


an illiterate person who ruins a beautiful idea?

The beautiful idea is that anyone can join the network with a full node and maintain a full copy of the blockchain to verify the transactions for themselves, without having to rely on trusting a third party.  You can't do that if the blockchain is so big that only large, centralised datacentres can handle the bandwidth for that task and everyone else is forced to use SPV.  Again, if centralisation can't be avoided, it's better if it happens on another layer.  We are preserving the beautiful idea.  Do I need to say "perspective" again?  

You think you see it right, we think we see it right, but clearly neither side is convincing the other to change their mind.  The only difference being that your side is, to be quite blunt, dead in the water and going nowhere.  You can say we're going in the wrong direction if you like, but at least we're going somewhere.


I won't engage in this discussion anymore because people like you (in the most optimistic scenario) are not able to generalize and think abstract.

Bye!  Good luck with your vapourware altcoin!


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: JayJuanGee on September 21, 2018, 06:59:58 PM
Take a breath Aliashraf. ...
I'm cool. Mind your business.

Quote

DoomMad's point about attempting to get x20 on lightning for every on chain transaction is particularly interesting..  

x20 is a lot, but not enough to sort us out to VISA levels.. but if you then throw in the Channel Factories...

Channel factories allow you to create the Lightning channels without going on chain. So we might expect 20 Lightning channels from a single  Channel factory.. and 20 transactions from each Lightning Channel, before requiring an on-chain transaction.

Now we have x20 x20 = x400.

So the current 10 txn/s on Bitcoin, with nothing more than clever scripting, could actually represent 4000 txn/s off chain.

That's more like it. And NOW if you did double the blocksize (or halve the blocktime..), to allow 20 txns/s on-chain, we'd be getting 8000 txns/s off-chain.

What's not to like
Ok enjoy LN, I'd like to stick with bitcoin.

Lightning network is pegged to bitcoin, you dumb ass, and it is voluntary whether you want to use such second layer, as you seem to already know.

As Lightning network expands, it is likely that a lot of the LN naysayers are going to end up using LN because it is going to become more convenient in terms of fees and transaction times, and just the expansion of the space in that direction.  Of course, this could take 5-10 years before channels becomes so wide-spread that even the disinformation spreading fucktards, such as yourself, are kind of forced kicking and screaming into a their own denial participation in which they assert that they were "never really opposed to LN" blah blah blah.. reframing history... as shill trolltards frequently tend to do.   :D :D :D
For a 'legendary' in btctalk you are amazingly ignorant.  ;D

Yes....  Such assessment coming from chicken littles like you carries a lot of weight.   ::) ::)    :P

We are now using fiat. Does it make fiat the ultimate monetary system?  

Yes.  Various forums of fiat including the USD are dominant, yet we are learning and likely to recognize that they are in competition with more potentially sound systems.... such as bitcoin.  Maybe even some of the pump and dump shit coins might prove to be more sound than the dollar?  We will see how this plays out with the passage of time, but there also might be periods of rapid migration away from some of the fiat systems and into bitcoin, so long as bitcoin remains seemingly vastly superior in terms of its soundness.

Google alone  switches almost 50% of Internet page referral traffic, is it the true Internet?

Yes.  Google currently plays an important role in the internet, and it could remain dominant in the space for a considerable amount of time, even though the concept of the internet is much broader as your seemingly rhetorical self-evident question seems to suggest.

I have no idea whether retards like you would succeed to bury bitcoin under multiple layers of stupidity (LN, factories, banks, whatever) or not, but I'm aware of the fact that ignorance has always a definite chance to get mainstream at least for a while, but how in the hell it would help covering the ugly face of an illiterate person who ruins a beautiful idea?

I have very little influence in the overall direction of this thing you call bitcoin with its multiple layers, but as long as I breath I have the ability to express various opinions, including participation in forums and threads like these.

Frequently, i attempt to make comments about what is and to describe its seeming progress and direction.  It seems to be a rougher row to hoe if you are trying to change the path that bitcoin is already on.... and to suggest some better direction.  Maybe you want to submit a BIP?  Probably not, you just want to complain without attempting to fix whatever problem(s) you are supposedly complaining about in your distracting and irrelevant talking points.

I won't engage in this discussion anymore because people like you (in the most optimistic scenario) are not able to generalize and think abstract.  

That's good.  You don't seem to be providing much helpful substance anyhow in your presentation of outlandish scenarios, and also your seeming failure to recognize that lightning network is a voluntary supplement to bitcoin rather than some kind of compulsory dead end.  So it is good NOT to have to play around with your academic abstractness and presentation of low probablility pie in the sky scenarios that are neither based on real happenings nor likely happenings.

In dirty scenarios, we are mostly dealing with paid trolls, hired by bitcoin whales who are against any discussion and reasoning practice in the community because it may hurt the reputation of bitcoin and they may lose a few bucks.   It is why they have started the infamous "anti-FUD" campaign in public sphere by assassination of advocates and authors.

Either way, stay tuned, we got still some cards to play, obviously other than arguing with you.  ;)

Yes.. you are misleadingly attempting to suggest that bitcoin has some kind of large propaganda machine and money dedicated to marketing - unlike banksters, government, alt coin pumpers and other anti-bitcoin disinformation campaigns and you seem to be part of the ladder rather than the former.

Bitcoin seems to be driven largely by fundamentals and soundness rather than campaigns, but surely it does not hurt to have some bitcoin advocates out there fighting the good (pro-bitcoin) fight, and likely they are hardly compensated individually (or as a team) like what seems to be taking place with others who campaign against bitcoin and are either decently funded by establishment money or feel it is in the interest of their pump and dump shitcoin project to portray bitcoin as broken and believe that their shit project will do better if it is portrayed as a fixer of bitcoin problems (that are largely either make believe or exaggerated).

It seems quite likely to me in the long run, value is going to gravitate into bitcoin and the misinformation is going to be sussed out by the sound money value of bitcoin, and even you are likely not so dumb to be unable to recognize that phenomenon (so hopefully, even though you seem to be a paid shill, on a personal level,  you have been smart enough to stack some bitcoin or at least to hedge some of it in contrary to your other fantastical abstract ideas).  So, even if it might take 20 to 50 years for the various misinformation campaigns to play out, the most sound of the monies is likely to gravitate the value, and at this point the most sound money seems to be bitcoin.. surely someday, if the most sound money changes, then I will personally adjust my investment in that direction, but currently, the most of the sound monies continues to be bitcoin, which includes a combination of the "on blockchain" solutions and various secondary layers that are in the works, including lightning network.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Ken007 on September 21, 2018, 10:16:01 PM
I really what to ask this question please..
Is the lightening network known as segwit?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Anon136 on September 22, 2018, 05:17:21 PM
I really what to ask this question please..
Is the lightening network known as segwit?

Segwit was a fork to the core bitcoin protocol that made implementation of lightning less difficult. Lightning network is a new protocol layer that is completely detached from the bitcoin protocol which rides on top of the core bitcoin network and allows the forwarding of secure redeemable but as of yet unredeemed IOUs that can be treated as bitcoin.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: ETFbitcoin on October 03, 2018, 04:39:49 PM
Looks like Electrum will support LN very soon, this surely will boost LN usage since majority of Bitcoiner who own desktop use Electrum.

https://twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/1047498819133480961 (https://twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/1047498819133480961)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on October 03, 2018, 06:31:13 PM
Looks like Electrum will support LN very soon, this surely will boost LN usage since majority of Bitcoiner who own desktop use Electrum.

I wonder if Electrum is going to support receiving funds over the Lightning Network. LND already supports "disabling" channels which means that the routing problem should not be present anymore. This solution should be implemented in Electrum as well in order to avoid the increase of offline channels which might cause problems while sending payments. I have just watched the end of the event's stream (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08LM46LyOBw) and it was mentioned that a new version with the Lightning Network support should be released in a few months. There is no need to rush.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: xbossJ on October 11, 2018, 11:22:29 AM
I understand very little about lightening network! I do know that for lightening network, some transactions are taken off chain! Question that bogs me most is how do the transactions get reconciled/synced with on-chain to avoid double spending issues?? and a unified record on the blockchain itself!!


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on October 11, 2018, 04:45:24 PM
I do know that for lightening network, some transactions are taken off chain!

Every single transaction made on the Lightning Network is an off-chain one. In order to start using the Lightning Network you have to open a channel with someone else using specialised software. Opening and closing channel requires broadcasting on-chain transactions.

how do the transactions get reconciled/synced with on-chain to avoid double spending issues??

The Lightning Network works thanks to Hashed TimeLock Contracts (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hashed_Timelock_Contracts). The current penalty system requires both nodes to be online once every day (144 blocks) by default (it can be negotiated) to check whether or not the other party attempted to cheat. If so, a penalty transaction is being broadcast. Off-chain funds can't be spend on-chain since they are locked up in a multi-signature address. Everything is settled down after the channel closure.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: degenLove on November 08, 2018, 02:46:48 AM
I belive that its LN that its helping holding the 6k. Everyone is beliving that this will make an YUGE impact in bitcoin future. If this goes wrong it will be a massive dump!

I would like to have an eye on LN developement. Is there any site to look?
Is there any issue/problem thats is not solved yet?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Zin-Zang on November 08, 2018, 05:40:30 AM
I belive that its LN that its helping holding the 6k. Everyone is beliving that this will make an YUGE impact in bitcoin future. If this goes wrong it will be a massive dump!

I would like to have an eye on LN developement. Is there any site to look?
Is there any issue/problem thats is not solved yet?

    
Flaws in LN (Lightning Network).  :)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5031079.0


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: d5000 on November 08, 2018, 08:07:28 AM
I belive that its LN that its helping holding the 6k. Everyone is beliving that this will make an YUGE impact in bitcoin future. If this goes wrong it will be a massive dump!
LN is not the only scaling technology for Bitcoin, albeit it's the most advanced one - all other are concepts, whitepapers or early testnet alphas (e.g. Drivechain). But if LN "goes wrong" then that doesn't mean Bitcoin will be doomed. And LN has already advanced to the point where it can be used for small amounts - so the possibility for it to "go wrong" gets smaller and smaller.

Quote
I would like to have an eye on LN developement. Is there any site to look?
Simply look at the development repos and other sources:

https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair (Eclair)
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd (LND/Neutrino)
https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning (C-Lightning)
https://blog.lightning.engineering/ (Blog of the LND developers)
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev (Lightning Development Mailing List)

I need to retake my testing of Neutrino/LND. ;)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on November 13, 2018, 08:41:09 AM
I belive that its LN that its helping holding the 6k. Everyone is beliving that this will make an YUGE impact in bitcoin future. If this goes wrong it will be a massive dump!

I would like to have an eye on LN developement. Is there any site to look?
Is there any issue/problem thats is not solved yet?

    
Flaws in LN (Lightning Network).  :)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5031079.0

Is this another attempt to put the blame on the developers for market crashes? degenLove, no the Lightning Network is NOT "helping holding the 6k". Plus no, Lightning MIGHT make a huge impact or it won't, but the "market" is not betting its hopes in it.

Bitcoin has already proven itself to be sounder money than fiat.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on November 13, 2018, 06:36:34 PM
Proposals which were accepted to the Lightning Network Specification 1.1 are available here (https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/wiki/Lightning-Specification-1.1-Proposal-States). The most notable ones (for an average user) are dual funded channels + proper advertising of such channels, Replace-By-Fee for funding transaction (not available for uncooperative close for obvious reasons), channel splicing, multi-path payments, increased maxchannel capacity and hidden destinations. More information can be found in the link above.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on November 15, 2018, 11:47:52 AM
Port forwarding doesn't work on those bad IP's (I can't upload data to my peers). Does it make a difference for running a LN node?

Yes, port forwarding makes a difference. But lightning doesn't need lots of listening nodes to add resilience to the network in the same way bitcoin does, but setting it up without port forwarding/listening only really benefits you (you will basically have a node that only your manual connected peers will see, the rest of the network will be unaware your node exists, so you won't be routing any payments). This is still useful; you can still set up channels, and monitor those channels.

If it does is it possible to connect to someone else's node to run my LN node?

Not sure if any of the lightning clients (clightning or lnd) allow this yet. Same applies, you can't accept incoming connections without port forwarding.

One solution is to use tor and a hidden service IP. The tor onion IP will be static, and tor client forwards ports. You can do the same for your own bitcoin node too, probably a good idea to investigate if it's better to use separate .onion IP addresses for the lightning node and the bitcoin node (I would expect the answer is "yes", for the sake of the privacy of people who would route payments through your lightning node). That would help both networks.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: nefIndustries on December 05, 2018, 02:26:24 AM
I belive that its LN that its helping holding the 6k. Everyone is beliving that this will make an YUGE impact in bitcoin future. If this goes wrong it will be a massive dump!

I would like to have an eye on LN developement. Is there any site to look?
Is there any issue/problem thats is not solved yet?

LN is a layer two solution, meaning it is built on top of & completely separate from the Bitcoin blockchain that has been running for almost 10 years. While the Lightning Network may help increase adoption, its impact will likely not be seen for at least a year or two. The network is growing at a faster rate every day (https://bitcoinvisuals.com/lightning). LND is hard to run for regular users right now. Right now, to implement a node using all the features available (connecting to peers, opening channels, funding channels, making sure you are properly connected to peers & the network) you must be fluent in some sort of command line interface, understand internet trafficking, IP addresses, and be comfortable using and reading information from a terminal. It may be scary at first, but with a drive to learn on your own, perseverance, and a little bravery, I know you can do it!

If that doesn't sound appealing to you, there are applications are being built with a user interface, making it feel much safer and less chaotic.

If the lightning network failed right now, I don't think it would result in a massive dump. I think this because not very many people are using it (https://hashxp.org/lightning/node/?sort=-paths1) & regular people are not paying attention to Bitcoin right now. If it failed during the craziness of December 2017, I think it would result in a massive dump, because people who buy at the top don't understand the technology and they would think it was actually Bitcoin that had failed. However, we know that it is a layer two solution and is completely separate from the standard Bitcoin Blockchain.


As for resources to keep an eye on development:

These are the three main BOLT protocol implementations (https://lnroute.com/implementations/)

This is one resource for news from the applications built on top of these implementations (https://lnroute.com/#)

Here you can see Lightning Nodes and their Channels (https://rompert.com/recksplorer/)

And finally here is an extra resource to keep you busy and learning for days! (https://hashxp.org/lightning/)


When you are hungry for more come back here!  8)


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on December 06, 2018, 08:45:56 AM
There is $1,800,000 in there. We should have a campaign underway to make Bitcoin merchants, casino gambling sites, and exchanges play with the Lightning Network. 8)

Where can we find some good guides for merchants to set up Lightning to experiment with, and what are the channels to find community tech support?

https://www.longhash.com/news/lightnings-crazy-fast-growth

Quote

Today, over 450 BTC ($1,800,000) is held in Lightning Network channels -- a 100x increase in channel capacity since February. In addition, there are currently over 16,000 channels on main net -- a 16x increase in channels since February.
https://www.longhash.com/uploads/images/2018-12-05/ueditor_68752f9e05c3c8f0ed9619e82f936ab5.jpg



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: JayJuanGee on December 06, 2018, 03:27:54 PM
There is $1,800,000 in there. We should have a campaign underway to make Bitcoin merchants, casino gambling sites, and exchanges play with the Lightning Network. 8)

Where can we find some good guides for merchants to set up Lightning to experiment with, and what are the channels to find community tech support?

https://www.longhash.com/news/lightnings-crazy-fast-growth

Quote

Today, over 450 BTC ($1,800,000) is held in Lightning Network channels -- a 100x increase in channel capacity since February. In addition, there are currently over 16,000 channels on main net -- a 16x increase in channels since February.
https://www.longhash.com/uploads/images/2018-12-05/ueditor_68752f9e05c3c8f0ed9619e82f936ab5.jpg


I thought that the lightning network had both public and private channels, so in that regard, is 450 BTC a reflection of the total size?  Forgive the newbie-ness of my question, but I really am unclear about how the private versus public aspects can be tracked and what kinds of numbers are reflected by such.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: ETFbitcoin on December 06, 2018, 05:06:06 PM
I thought that the lightning network had both public and private channels, so in that regard, is 450 BTC a reflection of the total size?  Forgive the newbie-ness of my question, but I really am unclear about how the private versus public aspects can be tracked and what kinds of numbers are reflected by such.

Track LN network capacity is pretty easy since all you need to do is check for 2-of-2 multi-sig HLTC transaction on bitcoin network. It's simple and effective method as almost nobody use such transaction format.

Private network/channel only prevent your transaction tracked from services such as https://1ml.com/ (https://1ml.com/), but it's not really private if you make channel directly to public node. CMIIW.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: JayJuanGee on December 06, 2018, 08:58:35 PM
I thought that the lightning network had both public and private channels, so in that regard, is 450 BTC a reflection of the total size?  Forgive the newbie-ness of my question, but I really am unclear about how the private versus public aspects can be tracked and what kinds of numbers are reflected by such.

Track LN network capacity is pretty easy since all you need to do is check for 2-of-2 multi-sig HLTC transaction on bitcoin network. It's simple and effective method as almost nobody use such transaction format.

Private network/channel only prevent your transaction tracked from services such as https://1ml.com/ (https://1ml.com/), but it's not really private if you make channel directly to public node. CMIIW.

So the punchline is that the 450-ish BTC on the lightning network is a largely accurate assessment of its full capacity?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: ETFbitcoin on December 07, 2018, 03:27:21 AM
So the punchline is that the 450-ish BTC on the lightning network is a largely accurate assessment of its full capacity?

AFAIK yes, even though there might be another way to track LN capacity that i dont know.
But FYI, it doesn't reflect amount of BTC you can sent through LN since that depends on amount of BTC that can send/receive on each channel which used on your payment routing path.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on December 07, 2018, 08:28:40 AM
There is $1,800,000 in there. We should have a campaign underway to make Bitcoin merchants, casino gambling sites, and exchanges play with the Lightning Network. 8)

Where can we find some good guides for merchants to set up Lightning to experiment with, and what are the channels to find community tech support?

https://www.longhash.com/news/lightnings-crazy-fast-growth

Quote

Today, over 450 BTC ($1,800,000) is held in Lightning Network channels -- a 100x increase in channel capacity since February. In addition, there are currently over 16,000 channels on main net -- a 16x increase in channels since February.
https://www.longhash.com/uploads/images/2018-12-05/ueditor_68752f9e05c3c8f0ed9619e82f936ab5.jpg


I thought that the lightning network had both public and private channels, so in that regard, is 450 BTC a reflection of the total size?  Forgive the newbie-ness of my question, but I really am unclear about how the private versus public aspects can be tracked and what kinds of numbers are reflected by such.

I'm confused, private channels? Aren't all open channels detected by checking the nodes of the Lightning Network? https://rompert.com/recksplorer/

I am also a Lightning newbie. Haha.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: ETFbitcoin on December 07, 2018, 09:51:39 AM
I'm confused, private channels? Aren't all open channels detected by checking the nodes of the Lightning Network? https://rompert.com/recksplorer/

I am also a Lightning newbie. Haha.

I think he meant node which don't connect to any other nodes which is part of public network, so AFAIK there's no way to detect or get details these nodes

Simple illustration made with draw.io. White ellipse is public node and blue ellipse is private node.
https://i.ibb.co/qnRddvg/public-private-ln-nodes-visualization.png


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on December 07, 2018, 11:14:42 AM
Newbie question. Would it then be correct to make an assumption that there's really more than $1,800,000 in total channel capacity in the network?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on December 07, 2018, 01:52:27 PM
Newbie question. Would it then be correct to make an assumption that there's really more than $1,800,000 in total channel capacity in the network?

If there are 2 or more networks, there are 2 or more totals


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: ETFbitcoin on December 07, 2018, 07:36:41 PM
Newbie question. Would it then be correct to make an assumption that there's really more than $1,800,000 in total channel capacity in the network?

IMO no, since these nodes looks like on different network and we don't know how LN statistic website gather the information? Do they simply only count Bitcoin from nodes/channel which connected to other nodes which share their nodes public-ally or use check for 2-of-2 multi-sig HLTC transaction on bitcoin network ???


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on December 08, 2018, 11:01:12 AM
Newbie question. Would it then be correct to make an assumption that there's really more than $1,800,000 in total channel capacity in the network?

IMO no, since these nodes looks like on different network and we don't know how LN statistic website gather the information? Do they simply only count Bitcoin from nodes/channel which connected to other nodes which share their nodes public-ally or use check for 2-of-2 multi-sig HLTC transaction on bitcoin network ???

I believe they should use the 2-of-2 multi-sig HLTC transactions. Technically they are the channels opened to use the Lightning Network?

Remember the "Roger Ver" Lightning node that was there, but no other node would connect to it? Hahaha.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: ETFbitcoin on December 08, 2018, 07:07:57 PM
I believe they should use the 2-of-2 multi-sig HLTC transactions. Technically they are the channels opened to use the Lightning Network?

Yes, since 2-of-2 multi-sig HLTC transactions normally only used by LN.

But you can't get the details (IP, channel's balance flow which used to determine how much Bitcoin can sent, etc.) of the node if the node don't share their channel point/identification hash (not sure if it's right term) or don't connect to the nodes.

Remember the "Roger Ver" Lightning node that was there, but no other node would connect to it? Hahaha.

I didn't know that, gonna check it later :D


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on December 10, 2018, 05:37:30 AM
It's apparently only a joke made by someone a few months ago, but it is funny that no one would connect to it just because it's called "Roger Ver". Hahaha.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWA44GlU0AEntKz.jpg




Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on January 01, 2019, 10:16:22 AM
The quote is from someone who claims that Lightning is a "separate network" because of something in its code called "chainhash".

What is chainhash, and how can the Lightning Network be considered a "separate network" because of it?

Quote

research it. hint: chainhash
here ill even show you a few lines of code that LN is not a bitcoin feature but a separate network for different coins
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/chainregistry.go#L580
Code:
litecoinMainnetGenesis = chainhash.Hash([chainhash.HashSize]byte{
0xe2, 0xbf, 0x04, 0x7e, 0x7e, 0x5a, 0x19, 0x1a,
0xa4, 0xef, 0x34, 0xd3, 0x14, 0x97, 0x9d, 0xc9,
0x98, 0x6e, 0x0f, 0x19, 0x25, 0x1e, 0xda, 0xba,
0x59, 0x40, 0xfd, 0x1f, 0xe3, 0x65, 0xa7, 0x12,
})

// chainMap is a simple index that maps a chain's genesis hash to the
// chainCode enum for that chain.
chainMap = map[chainhash.Hash]chainCode{

bitcoinTestnetGenesis:  bitcoinChain,
                litecoinTestnetGenesis: litecoinChain,

bitcoinMainnetGenesis:  bitcoinChain,
litecoinMainnetGenesis: litecoinChain,
}



Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: achow101 on January 01, 2019, 04:22:23 PM
The quote is from someone who claims that Lightning is a "separate network" because of something in its code called "chainhash".

What is chainhash, and how can the Lightning Network be considered a "separate network" because of it?
The Lightning Network works on any cryptocurrency that has some specific properties. For example, it can be used on both Bitcoin and Litecoin. The chainhash is the hash of the genesis block and is used to indicate which blockchain a particular lightning node is operating on. In a way, the Lightning Network on Bitcoin and Lightning Network on Litecoin are two different networks. However, they are also the same network too.

They are different networks in the sense that there cannot be channels which are shared across both blockchains. All channels are based on one blockchain as channels require modification of a transaction for that blockchain. Since Bitcoin and Litecoin use different blockchains, there can only be Bitcoin channels and Litecoin channels.

However, they can also be viewed as the same network because of cross chain atomic swaps. HTLCs allow people to create a channel on Bitcoin and a similar channel on Litecoin which uses HTLCs with the same hashed secrets. This let people atomically swap Bitcoin for Litecoin. So payments can still be routed over this joint network. If someone wanted to be paid in Litecoin over the Lightning Network but you only have Bitcoin channels, you can (in theory, I don't know if this is implemented) route your payment through a node that has both Bitcoin and Litecoin channels using the same HTLC secrets and it would be totally fine. The only caveat is the exchange rate between Bitcoin and Litecoin which would have to be negotiated with that node doing the bridging between Bitcoin and Litecoin.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on January 02, 2019, 05:32:30 AM
Thanks for the thorough explanation about chainhash, I shall refer to it whenever the topic comes up. But the poster looks like he's on a gaslighting rampage to make everyone believe that the Lightning Network is literally a different network, like Ripple. Hahaha.

He has been using chainhash as the basis of his "debate".


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on January 02, 2019, 02:18:42 PM
Thanks for the thorough explanation about chainhash, I shall refer to it whenever the topic comes up. But the poster looks like he's on a gaslighting rampage to make everyone believe that the Lightning Network is literally a different network, like Ripple. Hahaha.

He has been using chainhash as the basis of his "debate".

You’re not the only one to have noticed.  It's getting absurd now.  I don't often frequent the Reputation board, but I'm tempted to make an exception for this particular user.

Lightning may support more than one coin, but that doesn't diminish Bitcoin’s utility.  If anything, it's far more reasonable to argue that LN is an enhancement to Bitcoin’s utility.  It's just another way to move coins around.  The option is there if you need it.  And if you don't need it, you can still transact in the same way you always have done.

Units of BTC can never "leave" Bitcoin’s blockchain via Lightning.  The owner of the coins can change, but it's all still BTC on Bitcoin's blockchain.  Other compatible coins can send transactions in the same way on their respective chains, but this has no detrimental impact on Bitcoin.

Once LN is more user-friendly, rather than taking whatever arguments are presented here on the forums as gospel, people should just try it for themselves and form their own conclusions.  Obviously some forum users aren't content with that and will continue to attempt to dissuade people going anywhere near LN, in order to push their on-chain call-it-scaling-even-though-it-isnt agenda.  If people can see LN having a positive effect, it decimates the non-arguments of this small minority of malicious forum accounts.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: mechanikalk on January 03, 2019, 12:53:06 AM
Is lightning network making bitcoin centralised?

Yes.

It is also reintroducing middleman which will perpetually charge transactions fees due to network driven oligopolies.  It is a lot like Visa and Master card.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on January 03, 2019, 02:12:59 PM
Is lightning network making bitcoin centralised?

Have a look at one of the mainnet Lightning network maps and decide for yourself.  I'll see if I can provide a link, but I'm posting from a phone at the moment.

//EDIT:  https://explorer.acinq.co (https://explorer.acinq.co)  should show you the current number of nodes.  Many altcoins have fewer nodes than LN, so they are arguably more centralised than Lightning.  LN does have a different security model, however, so make sure you understand it thoroughly before you dive in to use it.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: coingecko on January 03, 2019, 03:26:18 PM
The problem I've seen so far with Lightning is that the nodes and wallets need to be online in order to send and receive funds.

Less intuitively than a bitcoin transaction where I can access it at a later time as long as its sent to the address.

Hopefully there are some thoughts to this. Tools to ensure uptime of the node is a good starting point.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Carlton Banks on January 03, 2019, 05:30:55 PM
Many altcoins have fewer nodes than LN

this


The problem I've seen so far with Lightning is that the nodes and wallets need to be online in order to send and receive funds.

Less intuitively than a bitcoin transaction where I can access it at a later time as long as its sent to the address.

Hopefully there are some thoughts to this. Tools to ensure uptime of the node is a good starting point.

This is the most legitimate criticism of LN. There's a solution though: run your own lightning node.

It's worth remembering that internet culture evolves rapidly, as it's really still an immature system (despite the huge improvements since the 80's/90's). People are always looking for "more", going to the next level of living. I expect that running a small server will eventually become one of those "next big thing"s, personal servers are useful for way more than just running a lightning node.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on January 04, 2019, 05:55:30 AM
Is lightning network making bitcoin centralised?

Yes.


No.

Quote

It is also reintroducing middleman which will perpetually charge transactions fees due to network driven oligopolies.  It is a lot like Visa and Master card.


Where are the middlemen? You mean the routing of payments from one point to another if the sender does not have a direct channel to the receiver? Those are peers, not "middlemen". Haha.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: franky1 on January 05, 2019, 04:53:58 PM
Those are peers, not "middlemen". Haha.

define middlemen
define someone with co-control of funds
they are not just a peer

EG banks
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control

EG LN lock
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control


so now your saying a bank is your peer, they can disagree with your intention to make a payment
they can choose their opening times. they can choose the limits of how much funds can be passed

yes you can close your account and open an account with another peer(bank)

i really do laugh when people try to deny another party is involved by saying 'but they are not a third party'
having anyone else involved and has partial or even main control means your not in 100% control

and if that other party has more control access of multiple users (hub/factory) then ask yourself
       y
       ^
       v
x<>o<>z

if you are X
what is o
2nd or 3rd party
peer or middleman

oh and if you think that users will be permanently online with a merchant:
all day for the purpose of one coffee a day
all day everyday for the purpose of buying groceries once a week
all day every day every week for the purpose of making one mortgage/rent payment a month

just to be tagged as 'second party' to avoid the meaningless tag of '3rd party'
you would be sadly mistaken

but trying to twist 3rd, into 2nd, into peer is more funny

why are you so afraid to admit LN is a separate network even though devs are happy to admit it
why are you so afraid to admit LN is a separate network even though literally N of LN spells it out
why are you so afraid admit to funds get locked into a contract
why are you so afraid admit to funds get locked into a contract of co-party control

why deny co-party control
why not just call it what it is and actually if you want to promote it to death. promote it for its reality. not its uptopia


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: squatter on January 05, 2019, 08:58:18 PM
define middlemen
define someone with co-control of funds
they are not just a peer

EG banks
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control

EG LN lock
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control

so now your saying a bank is your peer, they can disagree with your intention to make a payment
they can choose their opening times. they can choose the limits of how much funds can be passed

Your arguments never have any substance. You just baselessly refer to LN nodes as "banks" and expect people to believe you.

Counterparties in LN can only co-sign changes to channel state. They don't have control of the underlying funds. Any attempt to steal underlying funds can easily be thwarted by broadcasting the last state to the blockchain.

Peers in LN don't have the power to stop you from making payments. At most, they can cause a delay by not signing counterparty transactions or refusing to route them. There are no incentives for them to censor transactions, but there are incentives for them to route them.

Worst comes to worst, you settle to the blockchain. There's no comparison to banks.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on January 06, 2019, 08:14:55 AM
Those are peers, not "middlemen". Haha.

define middlemen
define someone with co-control of funds
they are not just a peer

EG banks
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control

EG LN lock
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control


How can you compare a bank and a trust-minimized network like Lightning?

Quote

so now your saying a bank is your peer, they can disagree with your intention to make a payment
they can choose their opening times. they can choose the limits of how much funds can be passed


No you said that because you assumed centralized banks = trust-minimized Lightning peers.

Quote

why are you so afraid to admit LN is a separate network even though devs are happy to admit it


Which developers?

Gaslighting again.

Quote

why are you so afraid to admit LN is a separate network even though literally N of LN spells it out


If the developers call it just "Lightning", it will stop to be a separate network? ::)

Quote

why are you so afraid admit to funds get locked into a contract
why are you so afraid admit to funds get locked into a contract of co-party control


But in a trust-minimized way. Co-parties don't control the coins.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: BitCryptex on January 06, 2019, 11:57:53 AM
Eclair (Android) has been renamed to Eclair Mobile (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fr.acinq.eclair.wallet.mainnet2) and received an update. User is now able to select to which Electrum server he wants to connect to. Receiving LN payments will be enabled somewhere in 2019 after LN 1.1 goes live (dual-funding and liquidity advertisement is needed). More information can be found in this article (https://medium.com/@ACINQ/eclair-wallet-is-now-eclair-mobile-e4d7eb2019a3).


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: franky1 on January 06, 2019, 01:42:04 PM
"trust minimalized"

lol im laughing

i think more people really need to actually research LN. its getting obvious who has actually used it and who is just repeating the propaganda promotion material


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: DooMAD on January 06, 2019, 02:17:26 PM
"trust minimalized"

lol im laughing

i think more people really need to actually research LN. its getting obvious who has actually used it and who is just repeating the propaganda promotion material

I've yet to hear complaints from those who have used it that the experience was like dealing with banks. 
I've yet to hear complaints from those who have used it that it is a utopian fantasy.
I've yet to hear complaints from those who have used it that their consensus was bypassed.
I've yet to hear complaints from those who have used it that it is a separate network that supports more than once blockchain.

All that repeated propaganda material is coming from you.

But as long as we agree on the part where people should try using Lightning before forming their own conclusions, rather than simply take your word or mine for it, then that's okay.  However, much like Bitcoin itself, it's only responsible to point out that Lightning is still not at the stage where it is ready for mainstream adoption.  It may be best for most users to wait a while before taking the plunge.  It's also important for users to learn about the differences between sending transactions via LN compared to the standard way of transacting before getting involved.  The security model is different.  Lightning is still beta software.  Users should experiment with only small amounts of BTC, or other compatible cryptocurrency, until LN is more mature.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: bones261 on January 06, 2019, 02:33:25 PM
 Lightning is still beta software.  Users should experiment with only small amounts of BTC, or other compatible cryptocurrency, until LN is more mature.

   If people want to experiment with the LN, they should use the test network rather than the main network. What is considered a "small amount" now could very well be considered a significant amount in a few years. I for one am going to continue to wait to use it. I attempted to set it up several month ago, but found the whole process to be a PITA. Thank goodness that at this stage in the game, the setup process isn't exactly idiot friendly.  :D


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Majormax on January 06, 2019, 11:46:40 PM
The quote is from someone who claims that Lightning is a "separate network" because of something in its code called "chainhash".

What is chainhash, and how can the Lightning Network be considered a "separate network" because of it?
The Lightning Network works on any cryptocurrency that has some specific properties. For example, it can be used on both Bitcoin and Litecoin. The chainhash is the hash of the genesis block and is used to indicate which blockchain a particular lightning node is operating on. In a way, the Lightning Network on Bitcoin and Lightning Network on Litecoin are two different networks. However, they are also the same network too.

They are different networks in the sense that there cannot be channels which are shared across both blockchains. All channels are based on one blockchain as channels require modification of a transaction for that blockchain. Since Bitcoin and Litecoin use different blockchains, there can only be Bitcoin channels and Litecoin channels.

However, they can also be viewed as the same network because of cross chain atomic swaps. HTLCs allow people to create a channel on Bitcoin and a similar channel on Litecoin which uses HTLCs with the same hashed secrets. This let people atomically swap Bitcoin for Litecoin. So payments can still be routed over this joint network. If someone wanted to be paid in Litecoin over the Lightning Network but you only have Bitcoin channels, you can (in theory, I don't know if this is implemented) route your payment through a node that has both Bitcoin and Litecoin channels using the same HTLC secrets and it would be totally fine. The only caveat is the exchange rate between Bitcoin and Litecoin which would have to be negotiated with that node doing the bridging between Bitcoin and Litecoin.


Good explanation.

It seems that alternative cryptos are helping LN become more secure by widening the breadth of different users and hashrate. Is that a fair assumption ?


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Wind_FURY on January 07, 2019, 09:02:59 AM
"trust minimalized"

lol im laughing

i think more people really need to actually research LN. its getting obvious who has actually used it and who is just repeating the propaganda promotion material


It is trust-minimized.

No, it's you who has not researched Lightning, or reject the reality that Lightning is truly decentralized, and truly is "peer to peer electronic cash", like how Satoshi envisioned it. 8)

You can laugh all you want, but no one believes you anymore, because all your narratives have been memefied.


Title: Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread
Post by: Yankeeruinx on January 10, 2019, 11:48:40 AM
Stakenet are doing some cool things with Lightning Network. They have run Lightning Swaps (Atomic Swaps on Lightning Network) on their mainnet and provided a guide so people can try it. They are currently getting ready to release their Multi-currency Light Wallet which seems pretty smart. They are holding the different blockchains on their MN network so the wallet only needs to hold the private keys and interacts with the blockchains by signing Lightning Invoices. This makes it really fast and lightweight as you don't download and sync blockchains. Their MN network will all be turned to Lightning Nodes and hold multiple channels as well as Watchtowers, they currently have just under 2000 MN's so it will open lots of new channels.

Using their Lightning Swap tech they are also building a DEX on top of the MN network so this will bring instant P2P trading on Lightning Network. I think this is going to help Lightning Network grow a lot this year.

Imagine a retailer only accepting BTC, now you can pay in any crypto and it instantly converts to BTC for the retailer. A more likely scenario I think is that retailers will start accepting USDC if Coinbase push it like I expect they will. So now you can pay in any crypto to the retailer and the retailer will receive USDC via an automatic Lightning Swap. Plus the Light Wallet makes it way easier for retailers to integrate as they don't need to maintain channels or keep full nodes open.

I think what they are doing is going to have a big impact on Lightning Network and hopefully massively help with adoption.