i have proven the Lightning Network can't provide decentralized scaling.

[hv_]

RECAP :

1) Jhonny (bless him..) posts his document telling us that LN won't work and that he has proven it mathematically.

2) Bram Cohen (Inventor of BitTorrent) replies :

In this analysis nodes aren’t bothering to make sure that they have any connections at all. Shockingly, if a single node has no connections whatsoever then no amount of other connections in the system will make it routable. If instead every node enforce that it has at least three connections then these problems evaporate and everything works fine. I’m not being flippant here, this analysis really is that dumb.

Also there’s nothing wrong with long routes. They settle out in the middle just fine, despite the author’s dismissiveness to the possibility that they can.
This is not to say that a completely random homogenous network is an ideal or even necessarily a good way of setting up routing, but it works fine as long as every node makes sure that it has a minimal level of connectivity.

3) Jhonny retorts :

Bram, are you sure you understand the article? “At least 3 connections” means you have to divide your money up “at least 3 ways”. With only 3 open channels, you’d be then relying on long routes which make actually getting your payment through exponentially less likely, as the math illustrates. Not sure what “settle out in the middle” means to you.

4) Bram retorts :

‘Settle out in the middle’ means using the smart transactions bit of Lighting so that there’s no lending happening in the middle. Maybe you should learn about how technologies work before posting tirades about them.
As for your math, I can’t tell if you’re disingenuous or just stupid, but this is a very simple concept: The probabilities of different routes working aren’t independent of each other, because the target node will notice if they have no connections at all and form some, so if some routes don’t work that increases the probability of other routes working.

If you assume that peers don’t make sure they have connections then your math is mostly correct, but your claim is that ‘lightning network can’t work’, not ‘lightning network doesn’t work with this asinine implementation I came up with’, which is what you actually showed.

5) Jhonny fires back :

With all due respect, I believe it is you who is being “disingenuous or just stupid.” The target node cannot form new connections without doing an on-chain transaction, which defeats the whole point: Why not just send an on-chain transaction in the first place, without the LN.

....

  .. as always.. please fasten your seat belt and make up your own mind.

ps.. in 5).. Jhonny is saying that the fact you have to make a single on chain txn to start using LN (and then potentially do infinite txns), negates LN. I'm not kidding.

Ouch - that (and more above) is killing LN.  I wait for first LN Fan Boy triade here wanting SW and LN work despite of this AND missing out any usual financial product disclaimer in case I might lose my bitcoin on that - nobody can tell there is 100% security on that - even bitcoin on-chain tx are not 100% secure but much closer to than  anything known yet.

[franky1]

the reality people need to realise is
FIAT spenders use debit cards 40 times a month on average, but because bitcoin is not acceptable in every retailer
the average spender only uses bitcoin once a week/once a year.(5 a month)  based on person-merchant

the only real niche LN has is the faucet raiders and exchange day traders that will want to arbitrage daily. (average 10 a day)

knowing people cannot predict spending habits beyond a couple weeks and wont risk locking entire hoards into year/eternity long channels. the reality is channels will only get funded with pocket money amounts and for only a couple weeks lock periods.

these things limit the available funding for route hopping to occur

LN is not.. and i emphasise this.. is not about the funds of [A-B] $120 actually moving out of the channel. LN is about having 'pockets' of funds that 2 parties share. and they have a couple pockets dedicated to share

think of it like a 3 legged race where the legs are tied together with a fanny/bumbag. where the money stays in the fanny/bumbag. but who owes what % of whats inside the fanny/bumbag is agreed by the 2 people tied to it.

so get 5 people and play a game


EG
[A-B]    [B-C]     [C-D]      [D-E]
imagine BCD only trust $60 for 2 weeks
A need to deposit $60 (1 channel with B of $60)
B need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with A and C)
C need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with B and D)
D need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with C and E)
E need to deposit $60 (1 channel with D of $60)
[$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60]

now imagine if A wants to pay E $60
[$0-$120][$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$60-$60][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120] now finally after 4 hops E has $60 extra thanks to the 'routing'/hops

technically B, C, D still has $120 but its not spread over the channels
for instance B has $120
but has $120 in [A-B] but $0 in [B-C] channel

meaning if B wants to pay D.. B can no longer user the [B-C][C-D] route because B doesnt have funds to pay C to pay D.

instead B needs to go backwards through [A-B] because thats where B's funds are, so...
B needs to give A.. then A needs to find a completely new route or create a new channel that is funded and has a new route to E to get E to pay D. or B needs to set up a new channel to fun that has a new route to E.

.. it may seem complicated but its alot easier visually if you just get 5 friends and 3 fanny/bumbags and put $120 of monopoly money in each bag ($60) each person... and without physically taking the paper money out.. agreeing who owes what inside each bumbag and then finding the best chain of hops to fund the group..

and see how long the 'payments' last by making up scenarios of buying each other things.. you soon learn the limitations of LN
next time you are at a bitcoin meet-up.. try it with the other attendee's. as its a very helpful visual display

[hv_]

And UaSF try to force themselfe into their lightning - sounds bit esotheric and helps bitcoin homeopaticaly.

Some good hashpower from above might get them back to the mainchain soon, hush hush.

 

[leopard2]

If Jonald was indeed a paid BU shill, he works hard for the money LOL 

Yes good work but I do not agree with the statement, that a partially centralized external layer is dangerous.

From a practical viewpoint, if some of the LN hubs want to buttrape me (e.g. KYC documents for their services) I will stop using those.

If all of them do it, I can fall back to onchain (so coins will never become worthless) and the community will abandon LN and move on to something else. LN is not irreversible....max risk IMHO is losing the Bitcoins that are blocked in a specific channel...which is much much less than what people put in exchanges.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers
leopard2

[peter0425]

Yo Jonald, you need to see this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2002791.msg19941312#msg19941312

[jonald_fyookball]

yes , I replied on her blog post.  she proves my point as her model requires 14 open channels per user and each person can only send 0.01 BTC