Lightning Network - pros vs cons?

[franky1]

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!

firstly. LN was envisioned due to your exact theory.. a background mechanism for exchanges.. blockstream made a private "liquid" network using multisigs. and then realised it could be used more broadly.. and thus LN concepts came to fruition.

it must be noted that channels need to be closed because the locktimes expire due to time and utilizing the time to make old 'payments' irrelevant, thus it runs out of time sooner to keep latest relevant and needs to close to secure a most relevant mutually agreed 'payment' before older LN payments become relevant.

EG imagine now its 02:00:00 26th Nov 2016 that the 'deposit' is paid.
with a locktime of say 03:01:00 26th Nov 2016 (1h1m) for simple explanation
first payment in LN you set and agreed to make it more relevant but unspendable until 03:00:59
next payment in LN you set and agreed to make it more relevant but unspendable until 03:00:58
next payment in LN you set and agreed to make it more relevant but unspendable until 03:00:57
and so on

obviously it doesnt mean you can do 3660 transactions(1h1m).
because:
you may not transact for 10 minutes. meaning you missed out on 600 possible alterations to the locks by doing nothing.
EG time is 02:10:00 - you cant write a tx locked to be unspendable until 02:00:01 because that time has passed.
you can only alter the locks while available locktimes exist ahead of realtime meaning doing nothing for 10 minutes leaves you only 3060 possible tx's

you may not transact for 40 minutes. meaning you missed out on 2400 possible alterations to the locks by doing nothing.
EG time is 02:40:00 - you cant write a tx locked to be unspendable until 02:00:01 because that time has passed.
you can only alter the locks while available locktimes exist ahead of realtime meaning doing nothing for 40 minutes leaves you only 1260 possible tx's

also because
if you opened the channel at 02:00:00 and instantly done 3659 tx's in milliseconds. the altered locktimes have now got to 02:00:01. so you have to close the channel to broadcast that most relevant 02:00:01 tx before older transactions become relevant/spendable

[1715467666]

1715467666

[Wind_FURY]

...


cons
possible prepay fes and penaltyies to use, causing barrier of entry

Is that implementation final? I believe it can change to the needs of the users over time. At best I do not think there is a final implementation of LN. Some might even say it is "vaporware" at this point.

stupidly considered the future direction of bitcoin by shifting people away from immutable transactions.

How is it shifting people away from immutable transactions? Are the transactions inside LN made to be deliberately changeable? Also remember that LN is a choice for the user whether he or she wants to use it or not. But everything gets validated in the blockchain when the channels are closed.

requires dual signing (permissioned funds) which puts users back into the 'banking' managed systems

Please tell us how LN puts us back into the "banking managed systems", and please explain how this is bad and not simply a creation of choice for the users?

[franky1]

Is that implementation final? I believe it can change to the needs of the users over time. At best I do not think there is a final implementation of LN. Some might even say it is "vaporware" at this point.

though code is not finalised. the mindset and concepts are becoming established. by atleast talking about it and making people aware of the concepts being stupid, may tempt the devs to change it before its locked into code..
rather than staying quiet with a wait and see and then have to put up with their code because they were not told what users want and dont want early on.

LN so far, are focused more on incentivizing nodes to stay active by making them profitable.

stupidly considered the future direction of bitcoin by shifting people away from immutable transactions.

How is it shifting people away from immutable transactions?

seems like your asking the big question about why bitcoin is such a big invention, and why immutability is important.

Are the transactions inside LN made to be deliberately changeable?

yes, thats the whole point. able to change who deserves what and how much they deserve. done in seconds rather but not secured by bitcoins PoW.
if funds were as secure as bitcoins blockchain while in LN. then we wouldnt need miners..

Also remember that LN is a choice for the user whether he or she wants to use it or not. But everything gets validated in the blockchain when the channels are closed.

also remember bank accounts is a choice for the user, whether he or she wants to use it or not. but users can verify thieir balance when they count out the bank notes when closing a bank account

thats very loose logic.. thats like saying dont worry about bank accounts you can always ask them to write you a cheque and get your account closed. and use the cheque to buy gold

requires dual signing (permissioned funds) which puts users back into the 'banking' managed systems

Please tell us how LN puts us back into the "banking managed systems", and please explain how this is bad and not simply a creation of choice for the users?

yes as a choice, i see its utility for gambling, exchanges, faucets, advertisers.
as for what they are choosing. people atleast have to be aware of the choice. and some people need to be reminded it is just a choice and not try pushing it as bitcoins only future solution.

as for how its deemed banking managed system
DUAL SIGNING. imagine a hub as a local bank branch. lets say there is a walmark bank2.0, starbucks bank 2.0, etc. where the funds are not exactly yours because you need permission from a separate entity to change how much you deserve and permission to separate yourself from their control to go back to the open network (bitcoin mainnet).

shying away from negatives and sitting on hands not even talking about issues solves nothing and doesnt help to make people aware of the whole picture.

having a sit back, shut up and wait and see attitude is something that lets a small group decide the direction of the masses because they are not told anything different. we as a community should be active and part of deciding "what users want". because we are the users, we are all bitcoin and we all should not put "trust" in a small group of people.