Announcing the Thunder Network Alpha Release

[Denker]

https://blog.blockchain.com/2016/05/16/announcing-the-thunder-network-alpha-release/

At Blockchain, we’re on a mission to create an open, accessible, and equitable financial future. Since our inception, we have focused on building products that make it easy for everyday people to use bitcoin to store and transfer value all over the world. We make Bitcoin usable and useful. We’ve been able to do that because we develop with a user-focused mandate.

A faster, cheaper, and more functional network would deliver real value to our users, so we were excited by the growth of research into payment channel technology on the bitcoin network and innovative uses of this technology. We were particularly interested in the idea of using smart contracts to build what are basically super-charged payments networks, as outlined in a white paper by the lightning.network team. Last year, we hired a talented engineer, Mats Jerratsch, who had been pioneering innovation in this vertical to work with our engineering team and lead research and development on a network based around these ideas.

Lightning networks have been purely conceptual, research based, and only in test nets and labs – until now. Today, we release the alpha version of our Thunder Network, the first usable implementation of the Lightning network for off chain bitcoin payments that settles back to the main bitcoin blockchain.

We used it internally a few days ago. Click here to learn all about Transaction 0 between Mats and me.

Thunder has the potential to facilitate secure, trustless, and instant payments. It has the ability to unleash the power of microtransactions, to allow the bitcoin network to handle heavy loads, and to increase user privacy. In this Alpha version, we prove that it can be done. From a feature perspective, there is both a node and a wallet (with GUI) present. Even more importantly:


    Settlement to the bitcoin blockchain

    Scale: According to our tests so far, we can achieve better-than-Visa scale (100,000 TPS) with only a few thousand nodes on the
    network

    Extremely cheap payments: fees will develop naturally, due to the free market in an open and permissionless network and will
    fundamentally be lower than on-chain payments

    Encryption and Authentication: All communications between all nodes and wallets are encrypted using AES-CTR and take place only
    after completing authentication.

    Seed Peers and automatically provide them with network topology using a basic gossip protocol similar to the one used in the
    bitcoin network, which allows complex routes over multiple hops

    Payment Channels can be opened and closed at will, with transactions settling onto the bitcoin blockchain

    Payment Debate: Across the route each hop will renegotiate a new status with the next hop, as a payment makes its way through
    the network with cryptography in place to prevent fraud

    Relaying Payments: TN will relay payments over multiple nodes in the network automatically, using encrypted routing. No one
    knows who made a payment, allowing for more privacy

    Settle payments automatically, no manual intervention needed. The settlement will ripple back through the network to provide
    proof-of-payment

    Instant Payments that are irrevocable the moment you see them

Until both CSV and SegWit are implemented on the bitcoin blockchain, transactions are not enforceable at the bitcoin protocol level. So, the current Thunder prototype is best suited for transactions among a trusted network of users. Try this amongst your dev team or amongst your trusted internet friends, but don’t use it for real payments. Remember: this is alpha testing software.

So why release this now? We believe it is critical to get something in the hands of users as soon as possible to gain feedback that will enable us to be ready when the network is. So review it, test it out, open an issue on GitHub, or send us an email. If you want to work on tech like this full time, head here and apply to join our team.

We encourage you to find out more at:

www.blockchain.com/thunder

https://github.com/blockchain/thunder

Lightning Network, Thunder Network.What next? Flash Network?

[thejaytiesto]

https://blog.blockchain.com/2016/05/16/announcing-the-thunder-network-alpha-release/

At Blockchain, we’re on a mission to create an open, accessible, and equitable financial future. Since our inception, we have focused on building products that make it easy for everyday people to use bitcoin to store and transfer value all over the world. We make Bitcoin usable and useful. We’ve been able to do that because we develop with a user-focused mandate.

A faster, cheaper, and more functional network would deliver real value to our users, so we were excited by the growth of research into payment channel technology on the bitcoin network and innovative uses of this technology. We were particularly interested in the idea of using smart contracts to build what are basically super-charged payments networks, as outlined in a white paper by the lightning.network team. Last year, we hired a talented engineer, Mats Jerratsch, who had been pioneering innovation in this vertical to work with our engineering team and lead research and development on a network based around these ideas.

Lightning networks have been purely conceptual, research based, and only in test nets and labs – until now. Today, we release the alpha version of our Thunder Network, the first usable implementation of the Lightning network for off chain bitcoin payments that settles back to the main bitcoin blockchain.

We used it internally a few days ago. Click here to learn all about Transaction 0 between Mats and me.

Thunder has the potential to facilitate secure, trustless, and instant payments. It has the ability to unleash the power of microtransactions, to allow the bitcoin network to handle heavy loads, and to increase user privacy. In this Alpha version, we prove that it can be done. From a feature perspective, there is both a node and a wallet (with GUI) present. Even more importantly:


    Settlement to the bitcoin blockchain

    Scale: According to our tests so far, we can achieve better-than-Visa scale (100,000 TPS) with only a few thousand nodes on the
    network

    Extremely cheap payments: fees will develop naturally, due to the free market in an open and permissionless network and will
    fundamentally be lower than on-chain payments

    Encryption and Authentication: All communications between all nodes and wallets are encrypted using AES-CTR and take place only
    after completing authentication.

    Seed Peers and automatically provide them with network topology using a basic gossip protocol similar to the one used in the
    bitcoin network, which allows complex routes over multiple hops

    Payment Channels can be opened and closed at will, with transactions settling onto the bitcoin blockchain

    Payment Debate: Across the route each hop will renegotiate a new status with the next hop, as a payment makes its way through
    the network with cryptography in place to prevent fraud

    Relaying Payments: TN will relay payments over multiple nodes in the network automatically, using encrypted routing. No one
    knows who made a payment, allowing for more privacy

    Settle payments automatically, no manual intervention needed. The settlement will ripple back through the network to provide
    proof-of-payment

    Instant Payments that are irrevocable the moment you see them

Until both CSV and SegWit are implemented on the bitcoin blockchain, transactions are not enforceable at the bitcoin protocol level. So, the current Thunder prototype is best suited for transactions among a trusted network of users. Try this amongst your dev team or amongst your trusted internet friends, but don’t use it for real payments. Remember: this is alpha testing software.

So why release this now? We believe it is critical to get something in the hands of users as soon as possible to gain feedback that will enable us to be ready when the network is. So review it, test it out, open an issue on GitHub, or send us an email. If you want to work on tech like this full time, head here and apply to join our team.

We encourage you to find out more at:

www.blockchain.com/thunder

https://github.com/blockchain/thunder

Lightning Network, Thunder Network.What next? Flash Network?

It's great that we can see all those different companies trying to compete against each other, this can only mean a better end product for us the consumers, and that is always good news. I can't wait until LN and the rest of this stuff is operative. All the FUDsters about how bitcoin can't do more than 7tx/s will be crying on their sleep when we beat all other payment processors on the planet.

[Kprawn]

Seeing is believing my friend ---> " Scale: According to our tests so far, we can achieve better-than-Visa scale (100,000 TPS) with only a few thousand nodes on the network " .... If that is possible, a

company like VISA can just buy your company and double their capacity and kill Bitcoin. Where are these nodes or were they tested with virtual machines? I hope they give us a live demonstration

on how this will work, and some proof of these statements.  

[raphma]

If it is true, then it's one of the biggest steps of bitcoin.
No more topics about "Bitcoin is dead" or "bitcoin can't keep up with fiat because is too slow".

But only if it is true... and right now i dont see proofs  

[GreenBits]

Still waiting for this to pan out a little more, but if this is true/works, I bet raising the blocksize won't be such an issue to the Asian mining conglomerate anymore. They will have to adapt to survive, and the fees should drift down a bit in the spirit of market competition.

Good job

[Bitcoinpro]

Sounds more like Malware also Miners set the fees not adhoc networks,

if it requires local trust instead of mining strength then it wont

be possible to integrate into core

[danda]

I'll wait for the trustless implementation, thx.

[Lauda]

Seeing is believing my friend ---> " Scale: According to our tests so far, we can achieve better-than-Visa scale (100,000 TPS) with only a few thousand nodes on the network " .... If that is possible, a

company like VISA can just buy your company and double their capacity and kill Bitcoin.

No. A system that they have no control of is of no use to them. Additionally, they can't kill Bitcoin in any form by buying any kind of companies. Besides, this is open source. Although I'm going to wait for someone to conduct and publish the results before I believe these claims as well.

I'll wait for the trustless implementation, thx.

Until both CSV and SegWit are implemented on the bitcoin blockchain, transactions are not enforceable at the bitcoin protocol level. So, the current Thunder prototype is best suited for transactions among a trusted network of users.

Read the page.

[Quickseller]

This makes me a little bit less uncomfortable with LN, however I would say that I am still overall opposed to LN.

I would be interested in reading the white-paper on the Thunder Network and am curious to see how it compares to LN. Does anyone have a link to the White-paper and/or know if one exists?

[Kakmakr]

I have one concern with these off-chain solutions. We are bargaining on transactions increasing in future to a level where it will replace the block rewards and still make it profitable for miners to mine, because they will rely on miners fees from these transactions to cover their cost.

If we move over to off-chain solutions to do the bulk of the transactions, we will see a decline in on-chain transactions and we would never reach a level where miners fees increase enough to make it viable for miners to continue mining.

Do I still understand it correctly?

[Lauda]

This makes me a little bit less uncomfortable with LN, however I would say that I am still overall opposed to LN.

Strange.

I would be interested in reading the white-paper on the Thunder Network and am curious to see how it compares to LN. Does anyone have a link to the White-paper and/or know if one exists?

Today, we release the alpha version of our Thunder Network, the first usable implementation of the Lightning network for off chain bitcoin payments that settles back to the main bitcoin blockchain.

It is just an implementation of LN, I'm not sure why it would need a separate White-paper.

-snip-

Do I still understand it correctly?

Not really, no. You are speculating, just like everyone, as to what is going to happen with the fees. Whether you like it or not, there is no such thing as 'mainstream' adoption and a 'mainchain only Bitcoin'.

[Quickseller]

This makes me a little bit less uncomfortable with LN, however I would say that I am still overall opposed to LN.

Strange.

I don't think this is strange. I trust that blockchain.info's best interests are aligned with that of Bitcoin. I cannot say the same with blockstream. 

I would be interested in reading the white-paper on the Thunder Network and am curious to see how it compares to LN. Does anyone have a link to the White-paper and/or know if one exists?

Today, we release the alpha version of our Thunder Network, the first usable implementation of the Lightning network for off chain bitcoin payments that settles back to the main bitcoin blockchain.

It is just an implementation of LN, I'm not sure why it would need a separate White-paper.

Maybe I was misinterpreting the announcement. I was hoping that bc.i was able to resolve some of the many flaws with LN. 

[Lauda]

I don't think this is strange. I trust that blockchain.info's best interests are aligned with that of Bitcoin. I cannot say the same with blockstream. 

Of course, everyone has the right intentions besides Blockstream. 

Maybe I was misinterpreting the announcement. I was hoping that bc.i was able to resolve some of the many flaws with LN. 

What kind of flaws are we talking about? I'm not sure where you've gotten your information from. Most of the "flaws" (that I've read about) was just 'ranting' in articles about how they will not be able to solve the decentralized routing and similar engineering tasks.

[Quickseller]

I don't think this is strange. I trust that blockchain.info's best interests are aligned with that of Bitcoin. I cannot say the same with blockstream. 

Of course, everyone has the right intentions besides Blockstream. 

That is not true. I just do not personally trust blockstream, and I feel that they effectively have much too much power of Bitcoin currently. From what I can tell they effectively have a veto ability when anyone attempts to make any changes to the consensus rules. I do not believe that any one entity should have the ability to veto any proposed change.

Maybe I was misinterpreting the announcement. I was hoping that bc.i was able to resolve some of the many flaws with LN. 

What kind of flaws are we talking about? I'm not sure where you've gotten your information from. Most of the "flaws" (that I've read about) was just 'ranting' in articles about how they will not be able to solve the decentralized routing and similar engineering tasks.

If a scammer were to open a payment channel and engage in a series of transactions that results in his "balance" being zero or effectively zero (very small economic amounts) then he will have nothing to lose in attempting to broadcast an "old" closing transaction that would potentially result in him receiving more btc then what he is owed from the payment channel. The payment channel will be protected by the "penalty" transaction that they can broadcast, however it is not a 100% guarantee that this will successfully confirm and in the off chance that it does not then the scammer is able to steal from the payment channel. If the "penalty" transaction does confirm then the scammer will have lost nothing because he was owned nothing in the first place.

Each time a new transaction on the LN is done, a series of transactions must be signed and sent to the various counter-parties in a very specific order. I fear that LN clients will potentially be tricked into thinking that they have received a signed transaction from the other party when in fact it has not and/or being tricked into sending a signed transaction in the incorrect order, potentially exposing the owner to risk of loss.

As it stands now, it is fairly trivial to have a wallet stored entirely offline, even one that is used several times per day. The number of signed transactions required to complete a LN transaction effectively makes it impossible to keep funds continued in a payment channel offline.

[Lauda]

From what I can tell they effectively have a veto ability when anyone attempts to make any changes to the consensus rules.

They can't.

If a scammer were to open a payment channel and engage in a series of transactions that results in his "balance" being zero or effectively zero (very small economic amounts) then he will have nothing to lose in attempting to broadcast an "old" closing transaction that would potentially result in him receiving more btc then what he is owed from the payment channel. The payment channel will be protected by the "penalty" transaction that they can broadcast, however it is not a 100% guarantee that this will successfully confirm and in the off chance that it does not then the scammer is able to steal from the payment channel. If the "penalty" transaction does confirm then the scammer will have lost nothing because he was owned nothing in the first place.

Interesting. Source?

Each time a new transaction on the LN is done, a series of transactions must be signed and sent to the various counter-parties in a very specific order. I fear that LN clients will potentially be tricked into thinking that they have received a signed transaction from the other party when in fact it has not and/or being tricked into sending a signed transaction in the incorrect order, potentially exposing the owner to risk of loss.

"You fear"? Speculation is not how we determine flaws. Anyhow, people need to be much more open to these solutions especially since they're in very early stages of their development. There are bound to be problems, flaws and whatnot and that is not necessarily a bad thing (at this point in the cycle).

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Looks like an interesting prospect but it's very, very early to discuss its merits.

[Come-from-Beyond]

https://blog.blockchain.com/2016/05/16/announcing-the-thunder-network-alpha-release/

It doesn't explain how routing problem is solved. Alice paying Ken needs to find a route via Dan, Eve and John. Any network maintained by peers will face the same problems as mesh networks:

Very long story short, the overhead in maintaining the link state information in meshed networks swamps the available bandwidth for even modest (think 20-40) numbers of nodes. Basically, as nodes are constantly moving/coming on- and off-line, nodes have to know which nodes are in the connection graph, so they exchange that information. But that eats up all of the bandwidth amazingly quickly, leaving no room for actual traffic.
There are some other issues with meshed networks (latency, battery usage when you're just a client node, etc.), but especially for those of the kind described/dreamed about here (which are also known as MANETS -- mobile ad-hoc networks), the routing issue is a huge one.
Finally, I should note the above isn't just academic; several companies have tried to build products based on these kinds of networks -- military contractors being one of note -- and have pretty much come up short.
So until the really fundamental issues are worked out, which is in the realm of academic research, not implementation, we probably aren't going to see anything like this.

If you ignore this problem you will likely repeat http://www.zdnet.com/article/painful-lesson-in-olpc-mesh-networking-for-mongolians/.

[calkob]

Wow this sounds amazing, i paticullarly liked the "better than visa scale" comment.  more than a 100000 TPS 

[ObscureBean]

This will definitely be awesome if it works as expected after being stress tested but I'm just a little wary of off-chain payments. I believe this could potentially open doors to new avenues of attack that wouldn't be possible on the main blockchain.

[Amph]

i guess this will be centralized enough to make me hate it, like LN is, i f it destroy the fundamental of bitcoin regarding decentralization

then it has no merit to even try to fix impertive issues about the bitcoin capacity