Bitcoin Forum

If not are they lightning tokens? They aren't really tokens the way ERC20 tokens are tokens, are they?

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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


"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.

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.


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 believe there is no worthy android app still using the LN.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.  

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:

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.

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?

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.

I'm pretty sure that's right.

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).}

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).



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:

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.


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.}

A thread for discussion of all things Lightning Network.

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.

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?

“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.”

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?

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 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?

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/).

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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,

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  ;)

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

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.

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.  ;)

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 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).

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?

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"?

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

You're absolutely, 100% wrong.

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


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.

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 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.

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.

Does anyone know of a node that will open a channel with you for no cost?

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.

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.

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.

It has become apparent to me that aliashraf is just a troll. Time for the ignore list.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

And it is yours? hahaha

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

   "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 ?

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

To how big nodes are you connected to?

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.

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.

Wrong! Block size debate is not over,

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

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.

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.

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.  ;)

$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)

"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

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.

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".

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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!?

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.

Deja vu.

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.

Hey now. My question was different.

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

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

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

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

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

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  :-\


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

How much were you trying to spend ?

1000 sats

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

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.

https://medium.com/@robban_69827/lightning-network-routing-fud-and-zombies-776b8238e66b

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.

I mentioned this issue yesterday ;)

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.

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

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.

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?  

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

long post

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?

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.

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:

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 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.

lame post

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".

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.   ;)

I am here to learn. I will continue debating with you until I am as smart as you. 8)

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?

You mean cheat in Lightning? Yes, there will be penalties if you cheat.

Wrong you can broadcast the latest state of your channel anytime. Did Andreas Brekken not close his channels but only having minor problems?

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.

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

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.

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.)

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

So all the nodes on the lightning network are operating via VPS now?  And your source for this is...?   ::)

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.  

You rather use the cost of a new PC matching the specs of a $60 Monthly VPS instead, knock yourself out.

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.

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.

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

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

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?

 :D

I can honestly say, Hell would literally freeze over before that happens.
But it is good to have goals.  :)

Do you need a full node, or can run in light mode? :)

 :D

I can honestly say, Hell would literally freeze over before that happens.
But it is good to have goals.  :)



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.

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.



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

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

Do you believe it would be a good idea not to have penalties in Lightning?

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

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.

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)

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.

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

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)

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?

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 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.

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".

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.

(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.)

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?

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.

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?

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).

It looks like neutrino (https://github.com/lightninglabs/neutrino) is already a part of LND. Running it doesn't require much setup.

Groestlcoin also implemented segwit, they were the only one to actually use a hard fork instead of a soft fork like btc & ltc.

 

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

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?

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.

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?

Can I install LN node and daemon on Ubuntu 14.04?
I try but cannot compile..

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

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?

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?

...
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?

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.

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 an average user of "Bitcoin as a payments tool", it would take more effort, time, and more eading.

...
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.

...
As stated elsewhere in the thread, eltoo simplifies the situation, and there's probably more room for improvement too.
...

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.

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/

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

Does all this mean that the lightning network is no longer beta testing?

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.

..
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

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.

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 ...

Is that limited to Lightning mobile apps? What about Lightning Network nodes like LND?


Do you really believe Lightning developers would be so stupid to allow something like that to happen? Haha.


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.

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

Multisig in LN doesn't mean they have equal control over your portion of the funds in the channel

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.

now here is a big hint. smart contract.. emphasis .. contract.
contracts are multiparty

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.

..
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

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.

it is possible..

[snip..]

im actually trying to use a flawed theory which i beleive that you are presuming to be true.... and im correcting you.

it is possible.
again learn factories

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.  

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.

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.

... 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.

So understand where the difference lies between us.  I'm supportive of legitimate improvements that have a decent likelihood of going live.  

Building a shit "on top of bitcoin" is not bad as long as it is not competing with bitcoin.

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.

It is proprietary software developed by a for-profit company

Instead of talking so much think a bit.

*facepalm*


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 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".  

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.

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.

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 ;)

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.

Who are you to decide about who matters or not?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It does not "compete". It's a feature you either want to use or not to use.

You are saying something for the sake of saying something. Tell us why and stop gaslighting.

Face palm. If you understood what the Lightning "Network" is, it is a "collection" of "delayed" on-chain transactions.

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.

But the blockchain trillemma is there. You cannot change one without changing one of the other two.

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.

What stops people like you to set a 24 hours block time and 100 KB block size to make bitcoin super-hard? ... Huh?

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.

-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.

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.

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.

There exists no _IF_  and it is not just about LN, any second layer off-chain scaling solution is doomed to centralization.

First of all this "resources required by full nodes" thing is irrelevant, nobody cares about the cost of a multi terabyte HDD ($100)

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

suppose I have no proposal neither for short-term nor for long-term to tackle bitcoin scaling problem, then what?

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, ...

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.

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?

*Double face palm* Lightning is a couple of on-chain open/flush operations plus a collection of off-chain transactions.  

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.

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?

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.

And we should just take your word on that because...?  

This could be why people aren't taking you seriously.  Network latency and bandwidth are the resources people are primarily concerned with.  Not Storage.

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.  

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?

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.

Take a breath Aliashraf. ...

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 !?

I'm cool. Mind your business.

Ok enjoy LN, I'd like to stick with bitcoin.

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.

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

What would be the point of bigger blocks?

For a 'legendary' in btctalk you are amazingly ignorant.  ;D

I have no idea whether retards like you would succeed to bury bitcoin under multiple layers of stupidity

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.

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.  ;)

I really what to ask this question please..
Is the lightening network known as segwit?

Looks like Electrum will support LN very soon, this surely will boost LN usage since majority of Bitcoiner who own desktop use Electrum.

I do know that for lightening network, some transactions are taken off chain!

how do the transactions get reconciled/synced with on-chain to avoid double spending issues??

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?

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?

    
Flaws in LN (Lightning Network).  :)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5031079.0

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?

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?

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

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

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?

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.

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 ???

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

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?

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".