The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.

[JayJuanGee]

........

So your suggestion that bitcoin is broken or deficient because it does not adequately compete with Visa comes off as a load of propagandistic and premature nonsense.. Bitcoin is way to immature to be even striving to compete directly with such a large system - but that does not mean that bitcoin does not have value for what it is - a decentralized immutable secure storage and transfer of value... think of all the power of that?  No other system comes close to bitcoin in terms of the exact thing that it is providing at this moment - even if it remains a "work-in-progress."

I never suggested that.

Well what's the difference that you are suggesting?  You are saying that bitcoin needs to serve both the store of value function and the payment function... and you are suggesting that it's gotta do it now, otherwise it is going to lose market share...

Yeah, heard rushed arguments like that many times, like you want bitcoin to evolve into some super machine over night, and the fact of the matter is that you seem to be focusing too much on aspects that you perceive to be negative rather than appreciating value and appreciating that bitcoin is continuing to be built in a lot of ways.  Are you changing your tune, now?

[dinofelis]

....  

I was wrong, that's the dumbest thing I've read in 60 pages.  

Dinofelis often posted garbage that is out of touch with reality, i.e. a view of Bitcoin that fits his own agenda. I have previously suspected him to be a government/agency/corporation shill (which would make sense considering he's unwanted yet persists by continually posting his nonsense).

Funny that we get anything done in this space because there seems to be quite a few of these kinds of posters.. and after engaging with them for a while,  you cannot really conclude that they believe the shit that they are writing.

I'm usually writing stuff that is perfectly logical, but that hurts the religious feelings of indoctrinated people that cannot think outside of their convictions.
Visibly a fundamental such belief is for instance, that full nodes help anything in the decentralization of the power structure of bitcoin, while bitcoin's protocol was EXPLICITLY designed NOT to give any such power to full nodes, and that (contrary to other aspects of bitcoin's design) that part of the design actually reaches its goal: full nodes have NO decision power.

From that ill-informed religious dogma, follow a lot of contradictions, which I patiently illustrate.  These obviously logical conclusions are then provoking strong mental resistance by the True Believers, and I have to say that I take some pleasure in poking logical holes in that belief, each time I find another illustration of it.  The idea of minimum block size, absurd as it may sound at first sight, but brilliant as a very secure and easy implementation of a guaranteed bilateral hard fork (which was for instance the problem with BU, that was unilateral) is again hitting such a dogmatic opposition, while there isn't any to be had.

Apart from big users (such as exchanges) and of course, mining pools, *nobody needs to store, transmit, or verify* the block chain, so if these entities can afford the resources to handle "a few DVD a week", bitcoin will work, and as their investments in bitcoin are WAY beyond the cost of "handling a few DVD a week", there's no problem.  A dedicated Joe can also have his "a few DVD a week" in his basement, but he only does that *for his own fun*.

This is hurting of course the fundamental belief system of bitcoin, and one "shouldn't waste computing and network resources because poor Joe and his old second hand Dell desktop on his 56K modem will not handle this and Joe is important in bitcoin".  It isn't.  Joe's second-hand full node has nothing to say.  But this cannot be heard by true bitcoin believers even though it was the core of bitcoin's design.   Bitcoin is now built on "wasting resources" where almost a billion dollar is wasted a year, but one is discussing about the craziness of copying a few DVD a week on those few data centres that are the essence of bitcoin, and do take, in any case, all decisions.

When you read such stuff, you know how far gone people are in deluded group think.  And yes, it is well known that people putting logical arguments on the table that hurt the fundamental dogma's of group think are badly considered by the indoctrinated.  That's what religious wars are all about.

[ComputerGenie]

Your rendition does not come off as very helpful in order to facilitate any kind of meaningful discussion of the matter.  You act as if Lightning network is some kind of private entity that is intended to take over and pervert bitcoin in some kind of nonsensical way ...

No, I come off like LN is not part of Bitcoin and is a disconnected 3rd party service (because it is). Saying that LN is part of the Bitcoin protocol is no different than saying that YoBit is part of the Bitcoin protocol; the exact total difference, in terms of the Bitcoin protocol, is the addition of a single opcode which allows for LN to communicate with the Bitcoin protocol more easily for the LN devs.
I'm not sure what "meaningful discussion" you imagine there can be; LN is not part of Bitcoin, period. No amount of "meaningful discussion" is going to change the fact that LN is not part of Bitcoin and no amount of "meaningful discussion" is going to make LN is part of Bitcoin.
You're looking for an explanation that doesn't exist. LN = you give away your coins to someone, stuff happens to them outside of the Bitcoin protocol, and at some future point the Bitcoin protocol is informed of who later becomes the owner of those coins (just like using YoBit).
LN can't "pervert bitcoin in some kind of nonsensical way", because LN is not part of Bitcoin.
I feel for you that this is difficult for you to grasp; however, it, literally, cannot be defined any simpler.

[JayJuanGee]

....  

I was wrong, that's the dumbest thing I've read in 60 pages.  

Dinofelis often posted garbage that is out of touch with reality, i.e. a view of Bitcoin that fits his own agenda. I have previously suspected him to be a government/agency/corporation shill (which would make sense considering he's unwanted yet persists by continually posting his nonsense).

Funny that we get anything done in this space because there seems to be quite a few of these kinds of posters.. and after engaging with them for a while,  you cannot really conclude that they believe the shit that they are writing.

I'm usually writing stuff that is perfectly logical, but that hurts the religious feelings of indoctrinated people that cannot think outside of their convictions.

Don't come off with this religious framework for your bullshit in order to attempt to attempt patronizing superiority.

Visibly a fundamental such belief is for instance, that full nodes help anything in the decentralization of the power structure of bitcoin, while bitcoin's protocol was EXPLICITLY designed NOT to give any such power to full nodes, and that (contrary to other aspects of bitcoin's design) that part of the design actually reaches its goal: full nodes have NO decision power.

I have not been speaking about nodes.  At least so far I have not.

From that ill-informed religious dogma, follow a lot of contradictions, which I patiently illustrate.  These obviously logical conclusions are then provoking strong mental resistance by the True Believers, and I have to say that I take some pleasure in poking logical holes in that belief, each time I find another illustration of it.  

more patronizing and back patting nonsense.

The idea of minimum block size, absurd as it may sound at first sight, but brilliant as a very secure and easy implementation of a guaranteed bilateral hard fork (which was for instance the problem with BU, that was unilateral) is again hitting such a dogmatic opposition, while there isn't any to be had.

If there is one block that has a minimum blocksize, then I see nothing wrong with that, but it seems that the mistake was to have a minimum blocksize upon the implementation of the 2mb hardfork that would would continue for every block.. 


Even a non-technical person like myself cans see the absurdity in the logic of such a situation if that is how the software plays out.. a locking in of minimum blocksizes. sounds absurd right on its face, and no religion is needed to reach such conclusion.

Apart from big users (such as exchanges) and of course, mining pools, *nobody needs to store, transmit, or verify* the block chain, so if these entities can afford the resources to handle "a few DVD a week", bitcoin will work, and as their investments in bitcoin are WAY beyond the cost of "handling a few DVD a week", there's no problem.  A dedicated Joe can also have his "a few DVD a week" in his basement, but he only does that *for his own fun*.

Sounds like unnecessary bloat to me.

This is hurting of course the fundamental belief system of bitcoin, and one "shouldn't waste computing and network resources because poor Joe and his old second hand Dell desktop on his 56K modem will not handle this and Joe is important in bitcoin".  It isn't.  Joe's second-hand full node has nothing to say.  

no need to denigrate joe and his capacity and require $100k investments by everyone who wants to participate.

But this cannot be heard by true bitcoin believers even though it was the core of bitcoin's design.   Bitcoin is now built on "wasting resources" where almost a billion dollar is wasted a year, but one is discussing about the craziness of copying a few DVD a week on those few data centres that are the essence of bitcoin, and do take, in any case, all decisions.

This whole line of discussion sounds like discussion of a non-issue...

If there is no need for increasing the blocksize then you are talking about irrelevancies..

And furthermore, this area of the discussion seemed to have gotten started by segwit2x fucking up the code and making stupid ass changes with questionable impacts and seeming to trick folks by sneaking in dumb and tricky language.  So yeah, let's double down and attempt to justify why their software is good and necessary, when it seems to be neither in part because it is tricky and sloppy.

When you read such stuff, you know how far gone people are in deluded group think.  And yes, it is well known that people putting logical arguments on the table that hurt the fundamental dogma's of group think are badly considered by the indoctrinated.  That's what religious wars are all about.

No need for me to continue to respond to your ongoing strawman nonsensical and lacking in evidence religious dogma allegations.   

[JayJuanGee]

Your rendition does not come off as very helpful in order to facilitate any kind of meaningful discussion of the matter.  You act as if Lightning network is some kind of private entity that is intended to take over and pervert bitcoin in some kind of nonsensical way ...

No, I come off like LN is not part of Bitcoin and is a disconnected 3rd party service (because it is). Saying that LN is part of the Bitcoin protocol is no different than saying that YoBit is part of the Bitcoin protocol; the exact total difference, in terms of the Bitcoin protocol, is the addition of a single opcode which allows for LN to communicate with the Bitcoin protocol more easily for the LN devs.
I'm not sure what "meaningful discussion" you imagine there can be; LN is not part of Bitcoin, period. No amount of "meaningful discussion" is going to change the fact that LN is not part of Bitcoin and no amount of "meaningful discussion" is going to make LN is part of Bitcoin.
You're looking for an explanation that doesn't exist. LN = you give away your coins to someone, stuff happens to them outside of the Bitcoin protocol, and at some future point the Bitcoin protocol is informed of who later becomes the owner of those coins (just like using YoBit).
LN can't "pervert bitcoin in some kind of nonsensical way", because LN is not part of Bitcoin.
I feel for you that this is difficult for you to grasp; however, it, literally, cannot be defined any simpler.

It is only as difficult for me to grasp as far as it remains relevant to our discussion of what is important or not important.

The situation boils down to you seeming to be quite adamant about your opposition to various innovations including lightning network (and likely other nonsense that you have been spewing)  that are likely to be coming to our lovely system called bitcoin and its appendages whatever those future appendanges may be, whether LN or sidechains or some other still evolving systems that segwit is likely to facilitate.   

[allinvain]

https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70

Thanks for posting this. This was quite useful in gaining a general idea of the LN. Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it? It seems like a neat addon to bitcoin's capabilities and it does not require a radical protocol change. LN can be extremely useful to those who make frequent use of the bitcoin network (ie transact often).

[hv_]

https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70

Thanks for posting this. This was quite useful in gaining a general idea of the LN. Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it? It seems like a neat addon to bitcoin's capabilities and it does not require a radical protocol change. LN can be extremely useful to those who make frequent use of the bitcoin network (ie transact often).

... and you fully trust into some sales arguments:

"Q 7: Will there be any form of custodian risk in a Lightning Network?

Do I need to trust anyone to hold my money on my behalf?

A:

No, this system is not based on trust; you remain in full control of your money.

If anything goes wrong, you simply broadcast the latest state of your channel as a normal on-chain bitcoin transaction.

All your money will be returned to your address, and it will be recorded on the blockchain as normal."


You would insert 100 coins, no insurance needed ?

[JayJuanGee]

https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70

Thanks for posting this. This was quite useful in gaining a general idea of the LN. Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it? It seems like a neat addon to bitcoin's capabilities and it does not require a radical protocol change. LN can be extremely useful to those who make frequent use of the bitcoin network (ie transact often).

I guess I had not participated in enough Lightning Network threads in order to have heard that argument, previously.... So when ComputerGenie began to make various arguments in that regard, I did not recognize or understand that he was making a kind of existential argument that in the end is irrelevant. 

In other words, who gives a ratt's ass if LN is part of bitcoin or not.  LN seems to provide quite a bit of functionality, as described in the FAQ linked article (above) and LN may or may not be used in the future (likely that it will be used), and I am not sure exactly what the speculation is, about LN taking away from bitcoin.

Sure at first there is going to be some transitional period in which LN is adopted more and more and more, so it is not too likely that  all of a sudden we are going from bitcoin today and transforming into some kind of LN domination of our lives, and maybe even by the time lighting network takes some foothold, then we will all be dead anyhow.. .. .sometimes it seems that we might be pushed into argument frameworks that don't really mean too much because they are filled with a bunch of speculation about a world that might exist 50 years from now.. and such a world becomes so speculative that it is no longer relevant to a conversation about the current state of affairs regarding where we are at, as we type.

[mindrust]

https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70

Thanks for posting this. This was quite useful in gaining a general idea of the LN. Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it? It seems like a neat addon to bitcoin's capabilities and it does not require a radical protocol change. LN can be extremely useful to those who make frequent use of the bitcoin network (ie transact often).

They hate it because it is an original code which is coming from the core devs. All the big blockers will ever be able to do for bitcoin is changing the block size parameter. 1 to 8mb, and when it gets filled, 8 to 32mb etc. Their thinking abilities are hard-capped. Very immutable.

They are also waiting for Jihan to come up with LN2x and then, they will be favoring LN.

Pathetic...

[-ck]

Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it?

So there are 3 main complaints people make about lightning network and these are a combination of partly true, part misconception, and complete FUD

1. Purists believed the blockchain was good enough for all transactions and the proverbial "cup of coffee" purchases could be done on-chain simply through micro bitcoin transactions. It's clear now that if we had all of VISA's transactions worldwide, in its current form the blockchain would need to have 2GB sized blocks to sustain that volume of transactions. Current technology and even anything we can perceive in the immediate future makes that impossible with transmission of new blocks generated, propagated and stored in a distributed manner. The counterargument is we'll only slowly get up to that size; it won't happen overnight and we'll find a way between now and then to do it.
2. Transactions being done on LN will remove fees from the blockchain by doing all transactions off-chain. LN transactions are actually limited to micro bitcoin values only and the fees all go to the network based on transaction value rather than size (unlike the blockchain) though opening and closing a LN channel requires an actual blockchain transaction and suitable fee. This one particularly had the miners riled up though segwit2x means they no longer believe in it.
3. LN is centralised instead of distributed and blockstream will will run it. Lightning nodes can be run by "someone" but that doesn't mean it will all be held by one entity. It is possible to run a node of your own though it is highly likely that several competing services will come out using the same protocol and people will use that in preference to running a complete full blockchain node and lightning node on top.

Where segwit comes in and where the objection to segwit comes from is that segwit makes LN easier and better featured so most LN development has been done with segwit existing in mind. The people who object to the above were against segwit based on the perception that segwit makes LN possible.

I expect the large exchanges will probably end up providing LN nodes of their own and compete on fees.

[hv_]

And what keeps some miner cartels away from attacking those central LN nodes ?

[The One]

........

So your suggestion that bitcoin is broken or deficient because it does not adequately compete with Visa comes off as a load of propagandistic and premature nonsense.. Bitcoin is way to immature to be even striving to compete directly with such a large system - but that does not mean that bitcoin does not have value for what it is - a decentralized immutable secure storage and transfer of value... think of all the power of that?  No other system comes close to bitcoin in terms of the exact thing that it is providing at this moment - even if it remains a "work-in-progress."

I never suggested that.

Well what's the difference that you are suggesting?  You are saying that bitcoin needs to serve both the store of value function and the payment function... and you are suggesting that it's gotta do it now, otherwise it is going to lose market share...

Yeah, heard rushed arguments like that many times, like you want bitcoin to evolve into some super machine over night, and the fact of the matter is that you seem to be focusing too much on aspects that you perceive to be negative rather than appreciating value and appreciating that bitcoin is continuing to be built in a lot of ways.  Are you changing your tune, now?

Give it up. If i want Bitcoin to evolve into some super machine overnight, i would have mentioned Visa, 1gb block, etc. Read my posts carefully as i never expect bitcoin to match visa or expect 1gb block. I was imply saying that 1mb block is stupid. I have reservation about segwit and don't think it is a great addition to bitcoin. I don't like LN either. I don't like the current fee system as it is totally, utterly crap.

[hv_]

........

So your suggestion that bitcoin is broken or deficient because it does not adequately compete with Visa comes off as a load of propagandistic and premature nonsense.. Bitcoin is way to immature to be even striving to compete directly with such a large system - but that does not mean that bitcoin does not have value for what it is - a decentralized immutable secure storage and transfer of value... think of all the power of that?  No other system comes close to bitcoin in terms of the exact thing that it is providing at this moment - even if it remains a "work-in-progress."

I never suggested that.

Well what's the difference that you are suggesting?  You are saying that bitcoin needs to serve both the store of value function and the payment function... and you are suggesting that it's gotta do it now, otherwise it is going to lose market share...

Yeah, heard rushed arguments like that many times, like you want bitcoin to evolve into some super machine over night, and the fact of the matter is that you seem to be focusing too much on aspects that you perceive to be negative rather than appreciating value and appreciating that bitcoin is continuing to be built in a lot of ways.  Are you changing your tune, now?

Give it up. If i want Bitcoin to evolve into some super machine overnight, i would have mentioned Visa, 1gb block, etc. Read my posts carefully as i never expect bitcoin to match visa or expect 1gb block. I was imply saying that 1mb block is stupid. I have reservation about segwit and don't think it is a great addition to bitcoin. I don't like LN either. I don't like the current fee system as it is totally, utterly crap.

++

You are not The only One

 

[JayJuanGee]

........

So your suggestion that bitcoin is broken or deficient because it does not adequately compete with Visa comes off as a load of propagandistic and premature nonsense.. Bitcoin is way to immature to be even striving to compete directly with such a large system - but that does not mean that bitcoin does not have value for what it is - a decentralized immutable secure storage and transfer of value... think of all the power of that?  No other system comes close to bitcoin in terms of the exact thing that it is providing at this moment - even if it remains a "work-in-progress."

I never suggested that.

Well what's the difference that you are suggesting?  You are saying that bitcoin needs to serve both the store of value function and the payment function... and you are suggesting that it's gotta do it now, otherwise it is going to lose market share...

Yeah, heard rushed arguments like that many times, like you want bitcoin to evolve into some super machine over night, and the fact of the matter is that you seem to be focusing too much on aspects that you perceive to be negative rather than appreciating value and appreciating that bitcoin is continuing to be built in a lot of ways.  Are you changing your tune, now?

Give it up. If i want Bitcoin to evolve into some super machine overnight, i would have mentioned Visa, 1gb block, etc. Read my posts carefully as i never expect bitcoin to match visa or expect 1gb block. I was imply saying that 1mb block is stupid. I have reservation about segwit and don't think it is a great addition to bitcoin. I don't like LN either. I don't like the current fee system as it is totally, utterly crap.

Good luck in finding something more preferable and more tailored to your personal needs.

[allinvain]

Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it?

So there are 3 main complaints people make about lightning network and these are a combination of partly true, part misconception, and complete FUD

1. Purists believed the blockchain was good enough for all transactions and the proverbial "cup of coffee" purchases could be done on-chain simply through micro bitcoin transactions. It's clear now that if we had all of VISA's transactions worldwide, in its current form the blockchain would need to have 2GB sized blocks to sustain that volume of transactions. Current technology and even anything we can perceive in the immediate future makes that impossible with transmission of new blocks generated, propagated and stored in a distributed manner. The counterargument is we'll only slowly get up to that size; it won't happen overnight and we'll find a way between now and then to do it.
2. Transactions being done on LN will remove fees from the blockchain by doing all transactions off-chain. LN transactions are actually limited to micro bitcoin values only and the fees all go to the network based on transaction value rather than size (unlike the blockchain) though opening and closing a LN channel requires an actual blockchain transaction and suitable fee. This one particularly had the miners riled up though segwit2x means they no longer believe in it.
3. LN is centralised instead of distributed and blockstream will will run it. Lightning nodes can be run by "someone" but that doesn't mean it will all be held by one entity. It is possible to run a node of your own though it is highly likely that several competing services will come out using the same protocol and people will use that in preference to running a complete full blockchain node and lightning node on top.

Where segwit comes in and where the objection to segwit comes from is that segwit makes LN easier and better featured so most LN development has been done with segwit existing in mind. The people who object to the above were against segwit based on the perception that segwit makes LN possible.

I expect the large exchanges will probably end up providing LN nodes of their own and compete on fees.

Thank you for that useful info. This clears up a few things!

In light of that I still think something like it - if not LN itself - is an inevitable requirement if we ever want BTC to compete with the FIAT payment systems. If the BTC community wants for BTC to remain just a sort of digital gold store of value and large value transfer (once in a while) then doing everything on the blockchain will still work.

I fully agree with you. I too expect this tech to be used primarily by exchanges, large traders and perhaps those btc gambling sites and whatnot.

[allinvain]

And what keeps some miner cartels away from attacking those central LN nodes ?

I could be wrong about this but this idea probably stems from a misunderstanding of how LN works. If they wanted to attack the LN nodes they'd have to attack the BTC blockchain itself.

[allinvain]

https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70

Thanks for posting this. This was quite useful in gaining a general idea of the LN. Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it? It seems like a neat addon to bitcoin's capabilities and it does not require a radical protocol change. LN can be extremely useful to those who make frequent use of the bitcoin network (ie transact often).

They hate it because it is an original code which is coming from the core devs. All the big blockers will ever be able to do for bitcoin is changing the block size parameter. 1 to 8mb, and when it gets filled, 8 to 32mb etc. Their thinking abilities are hard-capped. Very immutable.

They are also waiting for Jihan to come up with LN2x and then, they will be favoring LN.

Pathetic...

  Yeah this dogmatism I see from some people is pretty amusing. It's a mix of stubbornness and self interest me thinks. Jihan likely just cares about Bitmain's bottom line not necessarily about new and innovative technologies. They fell into a very lucrative niche as a virtue of an accident of geography and they intend to squeeze this bitcoin thing for all its worth lol .

Well, I guess 20 years down the road they can have their 1 GB blocks cause we'll all be using holographic crystal "hard drives" and we'll all have 1 TB fibre connections. This kind of thinking is akin to coming across a mountain in your way and instead of finding a way to avoid it you just smash your head against its cliffs with ever increasing power in the hope of tunneling through. Elegant and innovative solutions to problems are always more beautiful than brute force solutions.

[allinvain]

https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70

Thanks for posting this. This was quite useful in gaining a general idea of the LN. Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it? It seems like a neat addon to bitcoin's capabilities and it does not require a radical protocol change. LN can be extremely useful to those who make frequent use of the bitcoin network (ie transact often).

... and you fully trust into some sales arguments:

"Q 7: Will there be any form of custodian risk in a Lightning Network?

Do I need to trust anyone to hold my money on my behalf?

A:

No, this system is not based on trust; you remain in full control of your money.

If anything goes wrong, you simply broadcast the latest state of your channel as a normal on-chain bitcoin transaction.

All your money will be returned to your address, and it will be recorded on the blockchain as normal."


You would insert 100 coins, no insurance needed ?

I don't have to trust sales arguments because smarter people than me can read the code and find flaws. Besides the system can be tested before a single coin is ever risked. It's all open source, read the code and make your own mind if you should or should not trust it.

[The One]

Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it?

So there are 3 main complaints people make about lightning network and these are a combination of partly true, part misconception, and complete FUD

1. Purists believed the blockchain was good enough for all transactions and the proverbial "cup of coffee" purchases could be done on-chain simply through micro bitcoin transactions. It's clear now that if we had all of VISA's transactions worldwide, in its current form the blockchain would need to have 2GB sized blocks to sustain that volume of transactions. Current technology and even anything we can perceive in the immediate future makes that impossible with transmission of new blocks generated, propagated and stored in a distributed manner. The counterargument is we'll only slowly get up to that size; it won't happen overnight and we'll find a way between now and then to do it.
2. Transactions being done on LN will remove fees from the blockchain by doing all transactions off-chain. LN transactions are actually limited to micro bitcoin values only and the fees all go to the network based on transaction value rather than size (unlike the blockchain) though opening and closing a LN channel requires an actual blockchain transaction and suitable fee. This one particularly had the miners riled up though segwit2x means they no longer believe in it.
3. LN is centralised instead of distributed and blockstream will will run it. Lightning nodes can be run by "someone" but that doesn't mean it will all be held by one entity. It is possible to run a node of your own though it is highly likely that several competing services will come out using the same protocol and people will use that in preference to running a complete full blockchain node and lightning node on top.

Where segwit comes in and where the objection to segwit comes from is that segwit makes LN easier and better featured so most LN development has been done with segwit existing in mind. The people who object to the above were against segwit based on the perception that segwit makes LN possible.

I expect the large exchanges will probably end up providing LN nodes of their own and compete on fees.

Thank you for that useful info. This clears up a few things!

In light of that I still think something like it - if not LN itself - is an inevitable requirement if we ever want BTC to compete with the FIAT payment systems. If the BTC community wants for BTC to remain just a sort of digital gold store of value and large value transfer (once in a while) then doing everything on the blockchain will still work.

I fully agree with you. I too expect this tech to be used primarily by exchanges, large traders and perhaps those btc gambling sites and whatnot.

Yes. However if a trader is doing arbitrage trading between two exchanges, why use LN?

Lets say i want to sent BTC from exch A to exch B, btc takes so long. I just look at another coin like Stellar and if safe and profitable, buy STR, send to exch B, convert to BTC, make the usual profit. Stellar already does the job securely and very fast, less than 30 seconds; so why would anyone use LN?

[hv_]

https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70

Thanks for posting this. This was quite useful in gaining a general idea of the LN. Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it? It seems like a neat addon to bitcoin's capabilities and it does not require a radical protocol change. LN can be extremely useful to those who make frequent use of the bitcoin network (ie transact often).

... and you fully trust into some sales arguments:

"Q 7: Will there be any form of custodian risk in a Lightning Network?

Do I need to trust anyone to hold my money on my behalf?

A:

No, this system is not based on trust; you remain in full control of your money.

If anything goes wrong, you simply broadcast the latest state of your channel as a normal on-chain bitcoin transaction.

All your money will be returned to your address, and it will be recorded on the blockchain as normal."


You would insert 100 coins, no insurance needed ?

I don't have to trust sales arguments because smarter people than me can read the code and find flaws. Besides the system can be tested before a single coin is ever risked. It's all open source, read the code and make your own mind if you should or should not trust it.

Thing is we are running Bitcoin since 2009 now and lots' of people not even trust in this (and created 2k of altcoins to try out on that as well) - and we have limited space and resources to invest on the Bitcoin trust & scale.

Why should we not really concentrate on that very thing =on-chain ?

Diluting trust and resources to (not on-chain) things bankers and scammers can do way better and is NOT scope of pure Bitcoin ?

Tell people to read 2n order solutions, NOT Bitcoin?

Test fancy redundant networks, NOT Bitcoin?

Getting scared about sell chills, NOT Bitcoin?

Putting finally Bitcoin reputation ON RISK ?

- Sorry - I like the Satoshi Game & Nash equilibrium and second the code and try to understand this better FIRST Place. And miners = big users might do same.  Second place see FIRST.