Lightning network

[Lauda]

Well, it's clearly shown in position 3 of your own thread called "Bitcoin Core Roadmap visualized". Innit?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1349965.0

It mentions BIP 68 & BIP 112 which are needed for LN to operate. This is the roadmap:

Dec 2015   Deploy segregated witness testnet
Feb 2016   0.12.0 libsecp256k1 verification
Feb 2016   Segregated witness feature complete & ready for general review
Mar 2016*   0.12.x Deploy OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIPs 68 & 112) + BIP113 as first BIP9 versionbits soft fork
April 2016*   0.12.x Deploy segregated witness
2016       Weak blocks, IBLTs, or both

Do you see the Lightning Network anywhere?

Christ, just when you think adamstgbit's "LN CEO" retort couldn't get any moronic....
....We've Been Franked!

dear me.

It is best to ignore before you get brain damage (MaximBady reference). You should watch this guy (albeit off-topic suggestion).

[achow101]

Those fees will go to the people who own those payment channels and it is up to them whether to charge fees and how much to charge.

so whats stopping these "people" from turning thier utility of being an owner of a payment channel, into a legit business, thus making the owner a CEO of an LN channel, where the fees go to these "people" and not to miners

because if there are no fee's to use LN internally then miners get nothing.. because there are no fees to hand them..

Fees from LN don't go to miners anyways.

If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.

[pawel7777]

Well, it's clearly shown in position 3 of your own thread called "Bitcoin Core Roadmap visualized". Innit?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1349965.0

It mentions BIP 68 & BIP 112 which are needed for LN to operate. This is the roadmap:

Dec 2015   Deploy segregated witness testnet
Feb 2016   0.12.0 libsecp256k1 verification
Feb 2016   Segregated witness feature complete & ready for general review
Mar 2016*   0.12.x Deploy OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIPs 68 & 112) + BIP113 as first BIP9 versionbits soft fork
April 2016*   0.12.x Deploy segregated witness
2016       Weak blocks, IBLTs, or both

Do you see the Lightning Network anywhere?

This is getting funny.

So why, in your opinion, those 2 BIPs + LN mentioned at all in the roadmap visualisation (in a separate section) if it's "completely false" that LN is part of the roadmap?

But, most of all, what are those "bi-directional payment channels" in the link you provided? Like this one:

OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY: 25,000% improvement in bi-directional payment channel efficiency by allowing users to keep channels open as long as they want.

Totally not LN?

[franky1]

Fees from LN don't go to miners anyways.

If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.

and finally, welcome to the conversation.
as the other person said. if miners are not getting fee's... so now i think you are finally on the same wavelength and understanding of his point.

if people are using LN miners wont get paid.

[Lauda]

OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY: 25,000% improvement in bi-directional payment channel efficiency by allowing users to keep channels open as long as they want.

Totally not LN?

So your conclusion is that two BIPs that are needed in order for LN to function (while improving any similar implementation of payment channels) = Lightning Network? It this some joke? Please work on your comprehension skills. LN is not part of the roadmap. How many times do I have to tell you this? There are two groups (the most advanced) that are working on LN:

Joseph, Tadge and roasbeef's version: https://github.com/LightningNetwork/lnd/  
Rusty's version (Blockstream): https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning

Do you see here the Core team working on LN? No.

[franky1]

It is best to ignore before you get brain damage (MaximBady reference).

says the guy that knows ZERO about bitcoin code.. (psst, heres a hint, its not java)

how can he claim to know everything about bitcoin and think he knows whats best when he hasnt even read a single line of bitcoin code..

[achow101]

Fees from LN don't go to miners anyways.

If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.

and finally, welcome to the conversation.
as the other person said. if miners are not getting fee's... so now i think you are finally on the same wavelength and understanding of his point.

if people are using LN miners wont get paid.

No, miners still get paid. Opening and closing LN channels still requires on-chain transactions, so miners still get paid. There are also payments that are not efficient to use LN for that will still happen on-chain and they get their fees from there.

There is also nothing stopping miners from also becoming payment channel nodes to also make some money from those fees.

[LiberOptions]

Wow...
Thanks guys, now Im much more than informed
with all this information it seems like I've taken a course

[franky1]

Fees from LN don't go to miners anyways.

If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.

and finally, welcome to the conversation.
as the other person said. if miners are not getting fee's... so now i think you are finally on the same wavelength and understanding of his point.

if people are using LN miners wont get paid.

No, miners still get paid. Opening and closing LN channels still requires on-chain transactions, so miners still get paid. There are also payments that are not efficient to use LN for that will still happen on-chain and they get their fees from there.

There is also nothing stopping miners from also becoming payment channel nodes to also make some money from those fees.

if miners have to diversify to survive over the next 16 years (when fee's actually become important) then say goodbye to bitcoin security as they would jump ship, which i believe is a worry of the other person and many others. the fear of 131 year promise(2009-2140) turning into a 23 year bait and switch(2009-2032) over to other premined side chains that also have LN, is not appealing to long term investors including some of the core fanboys that think of bitcoin as a reserve currency rather than a casual payment currency

[ebliever]

Fees from LN don't go to miners anyways.

If the fees in payment channel hops becomes greater than normal transaction fees, then people will just use the good ol blockchain.

and finally, welcome to the conversation.
as the other person said. if miners are not getting fee's... so now i think you are finally on the same wavelength and understanding of his point.

if people are using LN miners wont get paid.

No, miners still get paid. Opening and closing LN channels still requires on-chain transactions, so miners still get paid. There are also payments that are not efficient to use LN for that will still happen on-chain and they get their fees from there.

There is also nothing stopping miners from also becoming payment channel nodes to also make some money from those fees.

if miners have to diversify to survive over the next 16 years (when fee's actually become important) then say goodbye to bitcoin security as they would jump ship, which i believe is a worry of the other person and many others. the fear of 131 year promise(2009-2140) turning into a 23 year bait and switch(2009-2032) over to other premined side chains that also have LN, is not appealing to long term investors including some of the core fanboys that think of bitcoin as a reserve currency rather than a casual payment currency

I don't see a fundamental problem. Mining will still provide income from on-blockchain fees. The LN just provides an additional opportunity for revenue. If LN fees rise too much then more activity is pushed onto the blockchain, and vice-versa. So there is a competitive environment, which is good for the whole bitcoin ecosystem.

Users of LN's are still motivated to support a robust bitcoin mining community, because an insecure bitcoin network means the value of their holdings within the LN's are at risk.

[adamstgBit]

it will take all the fees generated by low value TX on each block, away from miners and move them to LN CEO node operators.

90% of fees generated on each block come from low value TX.

some say its bitcoins killer app.  

a small change was required to make this comment more palatable.

[Anastasios]

it will take all the fees generated by low value TX on each block, away from miners and move them to LN CEO node operators.

90% of fees generated on each block come from low value TX.

some say its bitcoins killer app.  

a small change was required to make this comment more palatable.

May I ask why you are being resentful? Why try and discuss what LN is/isnt emotionally and not rationally?

Why would someone choose to transact over LN if the fees were the same? Also, why wouldnt fees on LN transactions be lower, due to the fact that it would be much cheaper to be a LN node than a miner?

[BitcoinVersys]

I think It's is a non-blockchain
And it impossible

[freesia_pnp888]

it basically adjusts the price lower and the transaction is faster.

[Bytem3]

Here's an article explaining lightning network:
https://coincodex.com/article/1124/what-is-the-lightning-network/

I'm really happy that it's gaining support.