Lightning Network - pros vs cons?

[Authoritai]

Hi I am trying to learn more about the Lightning Network and I've heard both good and negative criticisms. I am wondering why there is such a diversity of opinion on something that is supposed to help Bitcoin scale?

[1715100018]

1715100018

[1715100018]

1715100018

[1715100018]

1715100018

[franky1]

the issue is how well its programmed.

some are seeing one LN using economics (fees) to penalize users for extortion, DDoS, closing channels early etc.
some are seeing one LN using code to prevent users for extortion, DDoS, closing channels early etc.

so its still too early to judge the public release, and we can only talk about whats in design and try shouting out the flaws so that the public release is functional and not stupidly engrained with things that are a barrier of entry.

pro's:
a free choice to sit beside bitcoin for those doing high transaction volumes such as gambling/daytrading/faucet raiding.
not to be used as a scaling future direction. just a tool those doing high volume can use.

cons
possible prepay fes and penaltyies to use, causing barrier of entry
stupidly considered the future direction of bitcoin by shifting people away from immutable transactions.
requires dual signing (permissioned funds) which puts users back into the 'banking' managed systems

[rapazev]

As far as i'm aware, everything still very theoretic.
is hard to predict if these "cons" against LN will happen and i'm seeing as "only pro's"... bitcoin really needs a solution like LN to help with the transactions.

[Carlton Banks]

The "Banks 2.0" stuff is just pure FUD. Forget it:


Yep, you send money to a 2of2 Multisig address to fund the channel. But that transaction is crafted using a clever bit of Bitcoin scripting: in the event that the other party won't co-operate with the transaction you want to make through the channel, you can trigger a refund transaction of the full amount as a part of the script. So in practice, you're in full possession of your BTC, because of that clever little mechanism.

_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

Now, there is a way for people to steal from you... but not very easily, it's only if you don't pay attention to whats going on in your channel. What another party can do is keep old copies of channel transactions and broadcast a refund to themselves of whatever old state is most convenient to them (i.e. maximum funds in an address that they control). But the refunds are time-locked, you will have a copy of the correct (i.e. most up to date) refund transaction (where the thief wants to use an older copy when they had more money), and that will overwrite the theft attempt. So long as you notice before the time-lock on the refund transaction expires (a few days, apparently)


The biggest problem I'm seeing right now is this: there's an even easier way to stop that attack working, pay someone to watch what's going on on the blockchain for you, and when someone tries to use an out-dated refund transaction, they do the job of kicking that transaction out of the mempool for you.

IMO the problem with this is, that it will encourage (unimaginative) people to think "hey, I don't need to run a Bitcoin node anymore, my Refund Guardian service is doing that for me, I'll use SPV for non-micro payments, and I can get my hard drive space back!" Obviously, that trend would not be good for Bitcoin.

[franky1]

lol oh look "pay someone to watch your channel"...

and there he was just a couple sentences before pretending its not turning it into a MANAGED system..
end of rant about that person. who i dont want or need a reply from

i will say his last paragraph about people switching off fullnodes due to prefering to just use an LN node. is a con and valid con
i will say his other paragraph about theft can happen and is a con and valid con

funny how i said those 2 cons to him awhile back.. but atleast he is accepting them as threats to bitcoin/LN users. the awakening has begun


anyway ontopic

strange thing is that the flaws can be coded out to not require fee's, bribes, penalties, or management, supervisor costs... but instead its just another fee based model that cares more about economics than bug fixing using code.

though in concept.. one LN dev went to the extent of making a spreadsheet about all the penalties, costs and profits. and highlighted to utilise just for 10 days required a 0.006btc (~$4) prpaid buy-in/deposit) fe just to use LN to cover possible costs of using it. where it only become 'cheap' if doing thousands-their estimate of 80,000 tx in 10 days. (i facepalmed: no average consumer would accept)
again. if people treat LN as a SIDE SERVICE and are fully aware that funds are no long in sole discretion but instead dual signed (managed) and that fee's are involved. much like a bank.

then it gives people a clear and open minded choice to use it.

but to try suggesting it should be 'the solution' for bitcoins future and then under-admit the flaws, just to sell a utopian dream... thats where issues start to begin.

[Meuh6879]

LN is good for machines, exchange, supermarket.
LN can not compet Bitcoin usual habit.

Compare LN to plastic card payment network and Bitcoin to solid gold ... at the end of the deployment.

[iamnotback]

Follow the link below for the cons:

Lightening network sounds class or am i missing something?

Just reading about LN and to me it sounds brilliant, why are people weary of it?  what am i missing? is it because we need Segwit first?

Education for you:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16957687#msg16957687

[franky1]

LN is good for machines, exchange, supermarket.
LN can not compet Bitcoin usual habit.

Compare LN to plastic card payment network and Bitcoin to solid gold ... at the end of the deployment.

though it can be seen as fast 'processing'.. if the method for customer to get into a channel with <retailer>, locking in enough funds. and then only using it do a weekly shop... then i don't see so much of an advantage. (even using the multi-hop feature)


i see it having great utility for faucets, google adsense, kimDotcom, satoshidice gambling..
but the occasional spender who only does 4-42 transactions a month.. current concepts of 10day channel sessions and fee/penalties are not going to be "consumer friendly" for the retailer.

its like a retailer has and customer need to keep closing and opening a new 'bar tab' every fortnight. just so they can process payment in miliseconds. even if the customer only spends once a week..

its not really the utopian solution for everyones spending habits so should not be seen as the 'solution' for bitcoin.. just an addon service.. like BITGO have...

[kiklo]

The "Banks 2.0" stuff is just pure FUD. Forget it:

Actually the Bank 2.0 is Very Very Accurate. 
Considering it adds fractional reserve economics to BTC. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/56ehi1/fractional_reserve_on_lightning_network/

But if the LN is deployed, it will almost certainly be based on a small number of big hubs.
These big hubs could mutiply the money in circulation in the same way that banks multiply the amount of dollar bills.
Namely, they would start issuing bitcoin IOUs and lend them to people, backed by a fractional reserve of bitcoins.
That is, the hub has 1000 actual BTC, but issues IOUs worth 5000 BTC.

The hubs would extend the LN protocol to let clients use those IOUs for payments (much as people today use checks and bank wires as equivalent alternatives to cash).
Clients would even be able to redeem the IOUs for real BTC; the hubs would be betting that only a small fraction of the clients would redeem at the same time.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2015-December/000400.html

If we could lower the capital requirement, we'd lower the barrier for
people wishing to run a Lightning Network node.

Here are some thoughts:
   - The trust-based system you're proposing looks like a
   fractional-reserve banking system.
   - Such fractional-reserve hubs will provide lower transaction fees
   (because of lower capital requirements) — so the idea is worth pursuing.

http://www.wallstreettechnologist.com/2016/10/03/lightning-network-will-it-save-bitcoin-or-break-it/

for instance, if you are a large hub, with lots of capital but with many many connections to individual users and businesses, this means that everyone would want to route payments through you because less hops means less fees. If you had to open up channels by putting matching amounts of your money in with every other user, then this would be a limiting factor. (as you would have to have 100% reserve amounts for all your channels) and inefficient as a whole as the network would require 2 dollars locked up in order to send every 1 dollar.

Instead you only open up channels where the depositor puts in funds. The hub then credits their account balance with that amount. When they are paid money by other parties, the hub just increases the balance by that amount, they don’t actually move the money through a LN channel. This can be done as long as the payee is also another client of the same hub. When a client wants to withdraw, only then do they open up a withdraw LN channel to the client which they can pull money back out. This way the hub only locks up their own funds only when clients withdraw, which most of the time, will be minimal as long as people continue to use the same hub.

When a hub grows large enough, it will start opening bidirectional channels to other large hubs. If they trust each other enough, then they start crediting each other in IOUs instead of real payment channels.
You can end up with a fractional banking system existing as long as hubs trust each other to make good on their promises to pay each other back, and no crisis of confidence happens that causes a bank run.

 

FYI:
If you open a bank , everyone knows you are doing a fractional, BTC was created to get away from those shenanigans, and defaults that occurs
because of the way fractional reserves operate.  At some point their will be a bank run, it is never an if , but a when.
Latest example of fractional reserves in Crypto was Cryptsy and you see how well that worked out. 

FYI2:   http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-23/fractional-reserve-banking-pure-fraud-part-i

This is a commentary which should never have needed to be written.
What is euphemistically called “fractional-reserve banking” is obvious fraud, and obvious crime.
By its very definition, it transforms the banking sector of an economy into a leveraged Ponzi-scheme, and as with all Ponzi-schemes, there is no possible “happy ending” here.

Fractional-reserve banking evolved literally based upon the temptation of all bankers to perpetrate fraud.
Empirically it has always been observed, down through the centuries, that under normal circumstances, only a tiny percentage of depositors will come to claim their cash/wealth at any one time.
Thus the temptation is for bankers to “lend” more funds than they actually possess, i.e. they are “lending” what does not even exist: “fractional-reserve banking” – the ultimate euphemism of banking and fraud.

It goes without saying that anyone or any entity which endeavours to “lend” something which does not exist is perpetrating fraud.
But before examining this inherent fraud more closely, it is important to back-up, and look at the Law.
Note that even when banks “lend” the money which they actually do hold on deposit (as trustees for the depositors) that this is already wholly/totally illegal.
It is the crime known as“conversion”.

Criminal conversion:
A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person commits criminal conversion.

When your bank lends-out money you deposited, which it claims to be “holding” for you as trustee, does it seek your prior authorization before lending-out your property and thus putting it at risk? Of course not. The banks get around the naked criminality of their lending operations through general authorization. In the small-print of any/all bank deposit contracts is a clause whereby the depositor “authorizes” the bank to lend-out their property to Third Parties.

[Carlton Banks]

The "Banks 2.0" stuff is just pure FUD. Forget it:

Actually the Bank 2.0 is Very Very Accurate.  
Considering it adds fractional reserve economics to BTC.  

Nothing you've posted or linked proves your claim. None of that is an accurate description of how Lightning is designed to work.

[kiklo]

The "Banks 2.0" stuff is just pure FUD. Forget it:

Actually the Bank 2.0 is Very Very Accurate.  
Considering it adds fractional reserve economics to BTC.  

Nothing you've posted or linked proves your claim. None of that is an accurate description of how Lightning is designed to work.

Oh, but your imagined superiority gives you greater insight than all others.   

In the weight of trust, I posted multiple articles from different authors from different sources and you think the weight of your word alone , carries more weight? 



 

[franky1]

ignoring kiklo's endless attempts to try selling his zeit altcoin as something better by shaming bitcoin..

LN can be considered a bank network.
afterall.. what is a bank

a system where your not in full control of your funds.
the bank can put limits on your spending habits by refusing to authorise transactions
customers require the banks authorisation/agreement.
the only recourse in a disagreement is to close the account

although LN is not a central bank. it is a next gen localised bank. where LN hubs become the new bank branch managers

you can glorify LN as being linked to the open bitcoin network should a customer want to close channel.

but thats just like saying a bank manager of a local bank branch is a glorified accountant supervisor who has no control of SWIFT/cheque clearing house should a customer wish to close their account and take funds elsewhere.

accepting what LN is.. a side option/service. rather then an endgoal solution to bitcoin.. is the way to think about it.
LN has utility for fast action users like satoshidice, faucets, etc. but its not the solution for everyone

oh and as i was saying about the 'concepts' the LN devs are coming up with that are CONS

if anyone wants to know about one of the ECONOMIC methods or thwarting DDoS (rather than code)
if anyone wants to know about one of the ECONOMIC methods or thwarting extortion/deceit (rather than code)
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.html
half way down it says "results" where you can download their open office spreadsheet that displays the prepay buy in and all the penalty fee's

yea i facepalmed reading it
conclusion was the buy-in fee of 0.006(~$4) was not high enough to impact an attacker. (2nd facepalm: the whole posted didnt mention using CODE to fix risk)

[kiklo]

ignoring kiklo's endless attempts to try selling his zeit altcoin as something better by shaming bitcoin..

LN can be considered a bank network.

Only guy I know, that wants to argue with me even when we agree on the same point. 
Nice to see you too Frank. 

 

[krishna1]

without having a perfect knwledge and live demonstation of it, it is really hard to judge it but still if we analyse the runers then the pros do knew everyone. like it will make the bitcoin network faster with some amount of fees and on addition it will increase thw security amd stabiloty of the network but all i think is will the privacy and the irriversable feature still be like now?

[Carlton Banks]

The "Banks 2.0" stuff is just pure FUD. Forget it:

Actually the Bank 2.0 is Very Very Accurate.  
Considering it adds fractional reserve economics to BTC.  

Nothing you've posted or linked proves your claim. None of that is an accurate description of how Lightning is designed to work.

Oh, but your imagined superiority gives you greater insight than all others.  

In the weight of trust, I posted multiple articles from different authors from different sources and you think the weight of your word alone , carries more weight?  



 

Nope, you're putting words in my mouth.

It's very simple: nothing you posted or linked proves your claim. Cherry picking uninformed opinion only confirms your bias.

[kiklo]

without having a perfect knowledge and live demonstation of it, it is really hard to judge it but still if we analyze the runners then the pros do knew everyone. like it will make the bitcoin network faster with some amount of fees and on addition it will increase the security and stability of the network but all i think is will the privacy and the irreversible feature still be like now?

It will not make BTC any faster, when using LN, you will be on the LN network which can exchange account balances faster, because it is not a standard crypto coin.
You are basically trusting the LN network like you trust (wait for it Frank)................... A Bank.  

 

[kiklo]

Nope, you're putting words in my mouth.

It's very simple: nothing you posted or linked proves your claim. Cherry picking uninformed opinion only confirms your bias.

I sorry, I don't resort to mind control. Those ramblings are yours alone. 

Again your words are weightless, are you in outer space with no gravity? 
Lack of oxygen might explain why your debate skillz are so bad.   



 

[Carlton Banks]

will the privacy and the irriversable feature still be like now?

Privacy will be enhanced: the individual Lightning transactions are not recorded in the blockchain, so the ledger will be more opaque than before. Surveilling all Lightning transactions would be difficult, you'd need a surveillance node in a majority of channels

Irreversibility is, in a limited way, compromised. There's an attack possible if you go offline. Some malicious user in your channel that notices you're offline can try to close the channel using out of date transactions from the channel you're both in, stealing whatever BTC they spent later back from the people they sent it to. It doesn't seem like a very easy attack to pull off with bi-directional channels, as all the other users in the same extended channel may be online to notice, even if you're not (because some of their money might be at risk from the same attempt, they're incentivised to keep watch). There's a separate protocol that's been developed to allow a third party to watch the channel for you, in the event that you're offline (or if you're not running a Bitcoin node at all), so it's not much of a risk, providing you understand it.

[Killerpotleaf]

IMO where LN shines most is when large centralized wallets providers say Bitstamps and Every_Other_Exchange want to allow users to move funds to and from any exchange. there can be LN channels opened connecting all these echanges together, the channels are almost never closed, it is simply a trustless way for all the exchanges to track the movements of user funds back and forth.
from the user point of view he logs into bitstamps and request XBTC to be moved to MtGox, and in 3 seconds flat his account( or any other account he wants to send funds to ) on Mtgox is credited.
user doesn't need to worry about operating the channel, the exchanges do that behind the covers.

if your brain is saying " RED ALERT! " after reading this, congratulations you "get it", but you'll probably still use this killer app yourself... admit it!

[kiklo]

will the privacy and the irriversable feature still be like now?

Privacy will be enhanced: the individual Lightning transactions are not recorded in the blockchain, so the ledger will be more opaque than before.
Surveilling all Lightning transactions would be difficult, you'd need a surveillance node in a majority of channels

centralized - The software is fully open source.
Any one can start up a node, put some Bitcoins in and start offering their service to the network and earn some fees for doing it.
This low barrier to entry and ease of use should provide enough competition and enough nodes to make it decentralized.

There are some caveats:
people will have to put some funds into the node that are at risk if the device gets hacked
 (initially possibly through bugs in LN, but in general through any malware or badly secured and outdated operating systems).
This might be a slightly centralizing force as security is relatively cheaper to do at scale.

Hub Owners could sell your Private transactions data to marketing firms , just like banks sell your credit card transactions data.
This means all a hacker has to do is compromise a Hub to access your info.
Easier for courts to subpoena a hub to get your records.
Hire someone on the inside of a hub to funnel information. (How the Mob does it)

It will be less private, by far because LN will have more data to Cross Reference.