i have proven the Lightning Network can't provide decentralized scaling.

[HeRetiK]

Why would main-chain settlement be more expensive, when billions of transactions are happening on the Lightning network? Moving billions of transactions onto a higher, more efficient network layer would free space on the main-chain, not congest it.

More expensive than LN transactions, under the assumption that on-chain transactions are at capacity with the fee market taking over (ie. the situation as it is right now, just on a larger scale).

[1715544471]

1715544471

[hv_]

In the 2-layer model, the base letter is the settlement layer.  The problem is that if you force people not to use that base layer, it doesn't really matter what the layers on top will look like, because institutions become gatekeepers.

There are however designs like Drivechains where the "gatekeepers" are the same institution that secures the base layer - miners. In these designs I don't see, for example, possible censorship problems because game theory forces miners to work as expected.

In LN, that's a bit different, above all because the operation cost of a LN "hub node" is lower - and so pressure is lower on hub operators to work censorship-free.

I sadly have no proper model for, but think about the (mostly poor) masses will be adopted through cheap LN costs. How much % of the on chain tx will be caused by LN and limilar channels compared to now?

I d estimate more than 90% will. So you end up in huge traffic on such a hub node. Sounds not so cheap...

[HeRetiK]

I sadly have no proper model for, but think about the (mostly poor) masses will be adopted through cheap LN costs. How much % of the on chain tx will be caused by LN and limilar channels compared to now?

I d estimate more than 90% will. So you end up in huge traffic on such a hub node. Sounds not so cheap...

Bandwidth is as cheap as ever. Even if you can't run it at home you can get virtual private servers with 1TB of bandwidth for as little as USD 5,- / month at digitalocean.

[hv_]

I sadly have no proper model for, but think about the (mostly poor) masses will be adopted through cheap LN costs. How much % of the on chain tx will be caused by LN and limilar channels compared to now?

I d estimate more than 90% will. So you end up in huge traffic on such a hub node. Sounds not so cheap...

Bandwidth is as cheap as ever. Even if you can't run it at home you can get virtual private servers with 1TB of bandwidth for as little as USD 5,- / month at digitalocean.

Umf. So if bandwith is cheap why block the on chain scaling then?

[d5000]

I sadly have no proper model for, but think about the (mostly poor) masses will be adopted through cheap LN costs. How much % of the on chain tx will be caused by LN and limilar channels compared to now?

I d estimate more than 90% will. So you end up in huge traffic on such a hub node. Sounds not so cheap...

It's surely significantly costly to operate a LN node, but the costs cannot be compared with mining farms. I have also no numbers to show, but if we compare a miner that generates 1% of the hashrate its operating cost should be be much higher than a LN node that routes 1% of the LN traffic.

Also, a misbehaving LN node that censors certain transactions would not be that significant for the network like a misbehaving miner, because LN nodes are more a kind of "external" service that doesn't deal that much with the "heart" of Bitcoin. In many cases I think a LN operator could censor transaction "under the radar" without being noticed because the few people affected would simply use other hubs - but if many LN hubs conspire, they could make it costlier for certain groups to transact efficiently via LN.

[HeRetiK]

Umf. So if bandwith is cheap why block the on chain scaling then?

Latency. The bigger the blocks compared to the time between blocks, the bigger an issue latency becomes (ie. unless you're close to a large internet backbone your mining operation would run into the risk of orphaned blocks, leading to yet another centralization factor).

[digaran]

Lol every time you guys are reminded of the 1st Aug you ignite a fire and then the usual band of shills pour in with long posts to defend your ideology .
You think Bitcoin is irreplaceable right? damn wrong, you think you are immune from the outside world? damn wrong you are. people want fast transactions and with enough volume you'll see how other alts sweep in and take the crown. while you all are talking about game theories and how they are taking over the system.

[MicroGuy]

Lightning Network is basically Ripple on top of Bitcoin. We don't need another IOU system. We need a peer-to-peer digital cash system.

[Carlton Banks]

Lightning Network is basically Ripple on top of Bitcoin. We don't need another IOU system. We need a peer-to-peer digital cash system.

Nope, wrong. You have no clue.


Not just anyone can open up a Ripple gateway, you need to go through all sorts of formalities and already be a financial mafia *ahem* industry institution (and so you already need to have been through all those cartel initiation ceremonies *ahem* legal/regulatory proceeding and due diligences)


Lightning node? Download the software. Finished.

[MicroGuy]

Lightning Network is basically Ripple on top of Bitcoin. We don't need another IOU system. We need a peer-to-peer digital cash system.

Nope, wrong. You have no clue.


Not just anyone can open up a Ripple gateway, you need to go through all sorts of formalities and already be a financial mafia *ahem* industry institution (and so you already need to have been through all those cartel initiation ceremonies *ahem* legal/regulatory proceeding and due diligences)


Lightning node? Download the software. Finished.

You missed my point. I'm advocating the main chain for the primary transaction mechanism and using Ripple as a general analogy.

[tokeweed]

Apparently this guy read the blog and made a comment on Twitter.  I just wanna see a counter argument from jonald_fyookball and what his other thoughts are.  



https://medium.com/@bramcohen/in-this-analysis-nodes-arent-bothering-to-make-sure-that-they-have-any-connections-at-all-1fba7115e61d

[thecodebear]

There is no point to decentralisation if it doesn't improve our lives in some way. If its more difficult and more expensive then I don't want decentralisation.

It improves your life by denying others control over you.

Achieving that can be costly, irritating and a little clunky sometimes but it's one of those things you'll moan about until you truly need it. At that point it all makes perfect sense.

There are many wonderful centralised options ready for you right now. Give 'em a whirl.

Obviously he is missing the point, as you stated, of being decentralized means you have control over your own money, instead of the bank. That is huge. BUT, the dude has a point because most people will choose the more user friendly option, because people trust banks most of the time with their money. For bitcoin to truly take off on a global mass market scale it does need to be as user friendly, or very close to it, as current centralized options. Most people care about ease of use. If there isn't a significant negative difference in using bitcoin compared to standard options, then thats when mass use will happen because bitcoin has additional great features with the main one being you have control over your own money.

[hv_]

Umf. So if bandwith is cheap why block the on chain scaling then?

Latency. The bigger the blocks compared to the time between blocks, the bigger an issue latency becomes (ie. unless you're close to a large internet backbone your mining operation would run into the risk of orphaned blocks, leading to yet another centralization factor).

Do you have any idea how dense the bitcoin network already is? If you d really know, youd claim your post as FUD immediately by yourself...

[HeRetiK]

Do you have any idea how dense the bitcoin network already is? If you d really know, youd claim your post as FUD immediately by yourself...

The density of bitcoin nodes doesn't change the underlying physical infrastructure. I remember some of the alts that used extremely short block times (30-60 seconds) having massive orphan rates.

I'm not saying that Bitcoin blocks couldn't be bigger. I'm only pointing out that bandwidth and latency are two separate concerns.

[franky1]

Apparently this guy read the blog and made a comment on Twitter.  I just wanna see a counter argument from jonald_fyookball and what his other thoughts are.  



https://medium.com/@bramcohen/in-this-analysis-nodes-arent-bothering-to-make-sure-that-they-have-any-connections-at-all-1fba7115e61d

3 channels per user
guaranteed routing
LOL

guess he hasnt done much of the "x degree's of separation" theory.
3degree's of separation requires 21 'hops' to cover 10billion people so that everyone can connect to everyone

now think about it 10billion people with 3 channels, thats 30billion funds onchain tx's needing to be broadcast ONCHAIN to open such channels
...
also each of those channels need to have sufficient funds to flip within the channel to fund the route
also each of those channels need to be online to sign funds. which not everyone will be online 24/7 to 'accept' the route

and ofcourse with each channel costs a 'payment fee' meaning if 1 wants to pay 10mill. he has to find the route and then make 21 payment fee's
relying on all 21 participants to remain online as they payment snowballs through the 21 channels

..

[gentlemand]

For bitcoin to truly take off on a global mass market scale it does need to be as user friendly, or very close to it, as current centralized options. Most people care about ease of use. If there isn't a significant negative difference in using bitcoin compared to standard options, then thats when mass use will happen because bitcoin has additional great features with the main one being you have control over your own money.

I can't see how it could ever match your friendly local bank for convenience and safety unless you use it through a centralised portal.

He indeed misses the main point and for now it's the only point that matters. If it isn't decentralised then there really isn't much point in using it at all.

It can reach a huge scale without your average person switching from Paypal because it has qualities that Paypal will never match. If people can't see that then they should not be getting involved. There are enough others who can.

It was deeply stupid for anyone to tout it as some type of fun filled alternative to your debit card that was just as free and quick. As we now see actual usage brings some strains. They need a lot of hammering out.

[Yakamoto]

I sadly have no proper model for, but think about the (mostly poor) masses will be adopted through cheap LN costs. How much % of the on chain tx will be caused by LN and limilar channels compared to now?

I d estimate more than 90% will. So you end up in huge traffic on such a hub node. Sounds not so cheap...

Bandwidth is as cheap as ever. Even if you can't run it at home you can get virtual private servers with 1TB of bandwidth for as little as USD 5,- / month at digitalocean.

I wish we had data limits like that but you're dead wrong if you think that bandwidth costs that little in North America as a whole. In Canada we have, at best, half of those data caps for $100/month and they typically have mediocre dl/ul speeds at that point too. It's absolutely insane to try and maintain large blockchains in excess of 450G, at least when it is being synced for the first time. The only option for Canadians is to do something external, like hashocean at this point.

[jonald_fyookball]

@HeRetiK

to respond to two of your points earlier:

1. The point is to stop cripping the main chain with a blocksize limit.  Any limit (unless its orders of magnitude beyond market demand)
makes fees artificially high, which creates an economic barrier to transacting on-chain.

2. I don't believe in the 'latency' argument all that much.  A miner should have a fast internet connection,
and at worst , they're going to be a few seconds behind someone else?  Not substantial when talking
about a 600 second block interval.


@tokeweed

this was my response to Bram:

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/bram-are-you-sure-you-understand-the-article-51dc0365f27e

[HeRetiK]

to respond to two of your points earlier:

1. The point is to stop cripping the main chain with a blocksize limit.  Any limit (unless its orders of magnitude beyond market demand)
makes fees artificially high, which creates an economic barrier to transacting on-chain.

2. I don't believe in the 'latency' argument all that much.  A miner should have a fast internet connection,
and at worst , they're going to be a few seconds behind someone else?  Not substantial when talking
about a 600 second block interval.

Problem with simply increasing the blocksize limit is that it's only a linear way of scaling. It won't suffice. Not saying that the current blocksize limit is ideal, but once you reach say 100MB latency may very well become a problem. And even then you're still not close to VISA level of transactions per seconds. "Just a few seconds behind someone else" can get pretty costly in what is poised to become a billion dollar industry.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping as much on-chain as possible. It's only that off-chain transaction options don't seem so harmful to me as long as they are 1) not the only way to use the protocol and 2) decentralized.

The problem is that if you force people not to use that base layer, it doesn't really matter what the layers on top will look like, because institutions become gatekeepers. 

I'd still like to know what you mean by institutions.

[jonald_fyookball]

to respond to two of your points earlier:

1. The point is to stop cripping the main chain with a blocksize limit.  Any limit (unless its orders of magnitude beyond market demand)
makes fees artificially high, which creates an economic barrier to transacting on-chain.

2. I don't believe in the 'latency' argument all that much.  A miner should have a fast internet connection,
and at worst , they're going to be a few seconds behind someone else?  Not substantial when talking
about a 600 second block interval.

Problem with simply increasing the blocksize limit is that it's only a linear way of scaling. It won't suffice. Not saying that the current blocksize limit is ideal, but once you reach say 100MB latency may very well become a problem. And even then you're still not close to VISA level of transactions per seconds. "Just a few seconds behind someone else" can get pretty costly in what is poised to become a billion dollar industry.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping as much on-chain as possible. It's only that off-chain transaction options don't seem so harmful to me as long as they are 1) not the only way to use the protocol and 2) decentralized.

The problem is that if you force people not to use that base layer, it doesn't really matter what the layers on top will look like, because institutions become gatekeepers. 

I'd still like to know what you mean by institutions.

The problem isn't off chain per se, its cripping on chain and not letting it compete fairly with off chain which is what Blockstream is doing.  Let the market decide.

What I mean by institutions:  If base blockchain becomes very expensive (and assuming that everyone just doesnt leave to use altcoins) then what bitcoin will become is
only big players (exchanges, banks, brokerages, etc) transacting with each other and users being forced to use the services that run on top of them, since no one will pay
$100+ just for a tx.