Interesting takedown of the LN and Strike - any retorts?

[zander1983]

Main points of the thread:
- LN is centralised
- LN cant scale as it becomes to slow to find the shortest path through the network of channels
- Strike have no active channels on the LN
- Strike doesn't use bitcoin -the payments, transfers, etc, never touch the blockchain
- How can Strike be transfer money so cheaply since they need to use the FX market and have to pay for the spread? Best case is they’re loss leading with VC money.  Worst case would involve massive fraud


Any retorts to this?

https://twitter.com/DoctorOrrery/status/1503317804577325056

[jackg]

The goal of the lightning network was to become centralised (I'm not sure if that's still the case but it was the initial goal). There were communication problems between channels when I last used it and the main way to solve that was opening a channel with the developers.

Their whitepaper admitted they'd have to go with a design similar to how the Internet works in order to be able to scale as a network (it might be considered decentralised though if you could set your own nodes and the pool of nodes you can choose from remain big).

No one's ever going to be using dijkstra to find a shortest path though - unless a network is complete and prebuilt and nothing changes. There are algorithms like A* that would be faster as well as just needing to find a path between the two nodes (ie, plot 10 paths selecting random adjacent nodes in both directions until you find a direct route).

The plan of the lighting network's developers was to use a shortest path algorithm to plot out the base/main part of the network, use an algorithm to find a path from the sender to that network and then one to channel the funds from the network to the receiver.

[zander1983]

The goal of the lightning network was to become centralised (I'm not sure if that's still the case but it was the initial goal). There were communication problems between channels when I last used it and the main way to solve that was opening a channel with the developers.

Their whitepaper admitted they'd have to go with a design similar to how the Internet works in order to be able to scale as a network (it might be considered decentralised though if you could set your own nodes and the pool of nodes you can choose from remain big).

No one's ever going to be using dijkstra to find a shortest path though - unless a network is complete and prebuilt and nothing changes. There are algorithms like A* that would be faster as well as just needing to find a path between the two nodes (ie, plot 10 paths selecting random adjacent nodes in both directions until you find a direct route).

The plan of the lighting network's developers was to use a shortest path algorithm to plot out the base/main part of the network, use an algorithm to find a path from the sender to that network and then one to channel the funds from the network to the receiver.

So do you think Strike are overselling the LN?

[BlackHatCoiner]

The goal of the lightning network was to become centralised (I'm not sure if that's still the case but it was the initial goal).

I think that we've confused centralization, the general concept where a system functions using central points, and centralization, the situation where you've given up your money, your power, your privacy and your other rights.

The Lightning Network was supposed to have the former kind from the very beginning. IMO, this text from the whitepaper says it all:

As Bitcoin enables programmatic money, it is possible to create transactions without contacting a central clearinghouse. Transactions can execute off-chain with no third party which collects all funds before disbursing it only transactions with uncooperative channel counterparties become automatically adjudicated on the blockchain.

So, while you can characterize it centralized as few node operators have most of the capacity, it's still your money, your power, your permission. Completely trustless, centralized or not.

[zander1983]

The goal of the lightning network was to become centralised (I'm not sure if that's still the case but it was the initial goal).

I think that we've confused centralization, the general concept where a system functions using central points, and centralization, the situation where you've given up your money, your power, your privacy and your other rights.

The Lightning Network was supposed to have the former kind from the very beginning. IMO, this text from the whitepaper says it all:

As Bitcoin enables programmatic money, it is possible to create transactions without contacting a central clearinghouse. Transactions can execute off-chain with no third party which collects all funds before disbursing it only transactions with uncooperative channel counterparties become automatically adjudicated on the blockchain.

So, while you can characterize it centralized as few node operators have most of the capacity, it's still your money, your power, your permission. Completely trustless, centralized or not.

I agree with that. Have you an opinion on the last part - how Strike are doing this cheaply given the spread on FX exchanges?

[BlackHatCoiner]

I agree with that. Have you an opinion on the last part - how Strike are doing this cheaply given the spread on FX exchanges?

I honestly don't watch what's Strike doing, so no. I don't have an opinion.

[franky1]

So, while you can characterize it centralized as few node operators have most of the capacity, it's still your money, your power, your permission. Completely trustless, centralized or not.

EXCUSE ME!!
you do know that LN functions purely on contracts.. contracts requiring other parties to authorise payments. it does not work without others

seriously. learn multisig. learn channel partners. learn routing middle men
realise you never have 100% sole custody of your funds in LN. you need someone else to authorise any kind of movement payment or settlement

i wont even start getting into the flaws of LN's ability to fractional reserve its msats units of account.. nor the other flaws.. but you need to stop living the utopian dream and atleast if you want to be fair to people that you want to adopt your crappy network. atleast allow them to be risk aware by highlighting the flaws so that they can atleast mitigate their risks when they try using your crappy network

...
BITCOIN is a push payment. you push it only to the destination without need others authorisation

LN is a pass the parcel game. that doesnt even work well even at the best of times passing the parcel..  and can only work if the other players in the game choose to play pass the parcel with you..
totally different than what bitcoin does and is.

with bitcoin (not your silly altnet)
i can literally pay anyone with bitcoin whether they are online or not. i do not need anyones consent or anyone elses signature i do not need to check if particular peers are online and liquid to fulfill my request and i do not need them to actually agree to a request even if liquid. because bitcoin does not need that crap...

but LN does

please take some time to learn about the crappy network you love and adore so much. stop just trying to say its 'programmable bitcoin'/. its nothing like bitcoin. its a separate network that does different things. heck it doesnt even have a blockchain!!

go learn what your crappy network can and cant do and stop trying to sell it as bitcoin2.0(or as you call it L2)

grow up you failed salesman

oh and by the way.. el salvador seen the failures of LN soo much they dropped it. and now preferring a full custody model that atleast can work. because your favoured network caused them soo soo many problems

[BlackHatCoiner]

i can literally pay anyone with bitcoin whether they are online or not. i do not need anyones consent or anyone elses signature i do not need to check if particular peers are online and liquid to fulfill my request and i do not need them to actually agree to a request even if liquid. because bitcoin does not need that crap...

This is irrelevant to what I'm saying regarding centralization. It's just how Lightning works garnished with a little bit of your opinion.

stop just trying to say its 'programmable bitcoin'/

I never said that, even though it is, but I never did. Stop paraphrasing, misinforming and swearing on everyone, for the sake of this forum.

its nothing like bitcoin. its a separate network that does different things. heck it doesnt even have a blockchain!!

Good, and that's how it should be. You don't persuade anyone with this argument.


Please do not derail this thread, you have one dedicated to you.

[DaveF]

I look at lightning as the same way as routing vs peering in networking.
If I want to go from A to B on the internet my network provider can do one of 2 things.
Go from router to router, provider to provider to get me the data I want (routing)
OR
If the other end of the request is large enough, they can connect directly to them (peering)

I have many small nodes that I connect one of my lightning nodes to.
I have another node that I have mostly larger peers.
I also have a channel between the 2.

This way when I am making / receiving payments there will just about always be a good path.
Could probably accomplish the same with just the larger nodes but doing it this way gives me more options.

If you just want to buy and sell things and are using a hosted service, does it really matter how they do it in terms of connectivity so long as the sats move?

-Dave

[zander1983]

I look at lightning as the same way as routing vs peering in networking.
If I want to go from A to B on the internet my network provider can do one of 2 things.
Go from router to router, provider to provider to get me the data I want (routing)
OR
If the other end of the request is large enough, they can connect directly to them (peering)

I have many small nodes that I connect one of my lightning nodes to.
I have another node that I have mostly larger peers.
I also have a channel between the 2.

This way when I am making / receiving payments there will just about always be a good path.
Could probably accomplish the same with just the larger nodes but doing it this way gives me more options.

If you just want to buy and sell things and are using a hosted service, does it really matter how they do it in terms of connectivity so long as the sats move?

-Dave

Well, its how the do it that i'm most curious about. Because if what Strike say is true, then Visa & Mastercard are in big trouble. But given the limitations of the LN, and the FX spread, I do wonder. The Twitter thread says they are either sucking up the spread with investor money, or lying. I think there's a 3rd explanation, but I dont know what it is...

[franky1]

Well, its how the do it that i'm most curious about. Because if what Strike say is true, then Visa & Mastercard are in big trouble. But given the limitations of the LN, and the FX spread, I do wonder. The Twitter thread says they are either sucking up the spread with investor money, or lying. I think there's a 3rd explanation, but I dont know what it is...

its simple..
they hoped that el savador people dont ever actually exit chivo/strike back to fiat/bitcoin.
they hoped the citizens families in america would be buying BTC and going through the convoluted process of locking up UTXO with strike to then remit value to their el salv relatives
whereby strike can sweep them utxo up at each close session and assumilate more btc

however
if everyone exited chivo via making LN payments. strikes LN hub liquidity would get zero'd fast (this actually happened in el salvador multiple times when people tried buying things outside of chivo balance via LN..(mostly going to exchange LN hubs to then convert to fiat)

the idea(HOPE) was if only 5% of population exited chivo. then strike only had to handle 5% of el salv population
whereby the hope was that strike would only see 5% of the 5% actually want to convert to fiat and instead have 95% of the 5% just play pass the parcel within strikes LN hubs/channels/routes..

what i mean by this is that the exchange hubs would be sending to strike just as many(hoping more) inbound LN payments just as much as strike sends outbound LN payments to exchange LN hubs
where only 5% varience is lost in LN liquidity at worse but the hope of x% gains in the swaps imbound

but this didnt happen either and alot more than they expected tried exiting chivo and alot more than expected tried getting their LN balance into fiat.

but the ultimate hope was that none of the citizens ever dared tried to exit chivo to then claim and solely own actual bitcoin..
this kinda worked. hardly any ever did convert to bitcoin.. but due to issues on the conversion of chivo via LN to exchanges to then get fiat.. the strike hub liquidity issues cause alot of bottlenecks where people couldnt easily claim their $30. and so ultimately chivo dropped strike and went for a more direct custody with alphapoint.. avoiding LN entirely as a middleman payment process

[zander1983]

Well, its how the do it that i'm most curious about. Because if what Strike say is true, then Visa & Mastercard are in big trouble. But given the limitations of the LN, and the FX spread, I do wonder. The Twitter thread says they are either sucking up the spread with investor money, or lying. I think there's a 3rd explanation, but I dont know what it is...

its simple..
they hoped that el savador people dont ever actually exit chivo/strike back to fiat/bitcoin.
they hoped the citizens families in america would be buying BTC and going through the convoluted process of locking up UTXO with strike to then remit value to their el salv relatives
whereby strike can sweep them utxo up at each close session and assumilate more btc

however
if everyone exited chivo via making LN payments. strikes LN hub liquidity would get zero'd fast (this actually happened in el salvador multiple times when people tried buying things outside of chivo balance via LN..(mostly going to exchange LN hubs to then convert to fiat)

the idea(HOPE) was if only 5% of population exited chivo. then strike only had to handle 5% of el salv population
whereby the hope was that strike would only see 5% of the 5% actually want to convert to fiat and instead have 95% of the 5% just play pass the parcel within strikes LN hubs/channels/routes..

what i mean by this is that the exchange hubs would be sending to strike just as many(hoping more) inbound LN payments just as much as strike sends outbound LN payments to exchange LN hubs
where only 5% varience is lost in LN liquidity at worse but the hope of x% gains in the swaps imbound

but this didnt happen either and alot more than they expected tried exiting chivo and alot more than expected tried getting their LN balance into fiat.

but the ultimate hope was that none of the citizens ever dared tried to exit chivo to then claim and solely own actual bitcoin..
this kinda worked. hardly any ever did convert to bitcoin.. but due to issues on the conversion of chivo via LN to exchanges to then get fiat.. the strike hub liquidity issues cause alot of bottlenecks where people couldnt easily claim their $30. and so ultimately chivo dropped strike and went for a more direct custody with alphapoint.. avoiding LN entirely as a middleman payment process

Thanks, very well explained.