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

[CrewKitten]

The developers should figure out the scaling issues now. I am talking for long-term so that we don't need to go through this again when the price is, say, $50,000.

[gentlemand]

The developers should figure out the scaling issues now. I am talking for long-term so that we don't need to go through this again when the price is, say, $50,000.

This whole thing has been about control through the veil of scaling. The desire for control will never go away and no scaling solution will ever satisfy everyone. It's never going away but let's at least try and make one upgrade to see if it's actually possible.

There's a constant tension between capacity and the worry of centralisation that'll never go away.

[thecodebear]

The developers should figure out the scaling issues now. I am talking for long-term so that we don't need to go through this again when the price is, say, $50,000.

Agree. I mean I don't know what the best scaling solution would be. But segwit2x I'm guessing is only gonna scale bitcoin for maybe a couple of years at best I would think, if that. Then we are just gonna need another solution. If a hard fork happens it needs to be a one time thing, not every year a hard fork is needed to keep scaling bitcoin. I guess some people think Lightning Network is the ultimate scaling solution for bitcoin. I'm not sold, I just don't see it being used for more than a few percent of transactions, but I could be wrong. But its use case seems pretty niche to me. Hell, it could be that blockchain tech just isn't scalable to a mass market level (at least without needing vast super computers or vast groups of computers as the mining nodes, but then it really isn't any different than centralized solutions).

[HeRetiK]

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.

Point taken.

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.

Thank you for elaborating! I argue that despite the monetary overhead needed also regular users would be able to act as LN hubs. You're assuming that everyone needs to have 100% of their funds to be liquid all the time. Let's not forget that there's a lot of early adopters that have more Bitcoins at their hands than they would need for their monthly expenses. Regarding the avoidance of institutional actors, wealth disparity may actually work in favour of LN.

[hv_]

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.

Point taken.

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.

Thank you for elaborating! I argue that despite the monetary overhead needed also regular users would be able to act as LN hubs. You're assuming that everyone needs to have 100% of their funds to be liquid all the time. Let's not forget that there's a lot of early adopters that have more Bitcoins at their hands than they would need for their monthly expenses. Regarding the avoidance of institutional actors, wealth disparity may actually work in favour of LN.

And the big shit is that BScore wants to do this wrong order. I m happy to have such channels later when on chain scaling , the most secure thing ever, is maximized. Also miners want that first because with LN firsst they have to share fees and miners are one of the biggest users as well...

[hv_]

Check this video at 3:09

LN is a Mesh with 80 Hubs. always attackable. Anyone get this explained?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1997310.0


And yes, if you do not concentrate to on chain scaling, you allow starting that less secure crap around, weakening bitcoin network security...

[HeRetiK]

Check this video at 3:09

LN is a Mesh with 80 Hubs. always attackable. Anyone get this explained?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1997310.0

And yes, if you do not concentrate to on chain scaling, you allow starting that less secure crap around, weakening bitcoin network security...

Bitcoin network security can't get weakened by layers you put on top of it, unless you change the very core of the Bitcoin protocol itself.

The bit at 03:09 is assuming that Sybil attacks are viable. Possibility does not equal viability. Claiming that the Bitcoin is fully distributed doesn't mean anything if you equate non-mining full nodes with the handful of mining pools that are actually confirming transactions.

[hv_]

Check this video at 3:09

LN is a Mesh with 80 Hubs. always attackable. Anyone get this explained?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1997310.0

And yes, if you do not concentrate to on chain scaling, you allow starting that less secure crap around, weakening bitcoin network security...

Bitcoin network security can't get weakened by layers you put on top of it, unless you change the very core of the Bitcoin protocol itself.

I cannot agree in full here. He also says wise words about scarcity at all. If you spend recources to one side, there is always another side suffering.

Translate

If you spend things on 2nd layer dev, on chain scaling does not get full support. Choose what you want bitcoin to be. I vote for on chain as much as possible. Its our best security.

[buwaytress]

You may think I begin trolling now ... but I mostly agree with your analysis. I have discussed, above all, the "channel exhaustion" (=channels that lose the "routing power") problem with other users and no solution (that doesn't involve a centralized entity) has been found.

For me, LN was never more than a semi-centralized micropayment solution that is better than a totally-centralized online wallet because the "bank" cannot run away with my money. I would be happy if I can manage all my 0-20USD payments via LN and having at least 10 different hubs to chose from.

As much as we all are for "as much decentralisation as possible", there is not going to be "true decentralisation". The evidence for and against all solutions seem to hinge around this idea: "it won't work because that's centralisation".

Fair points for sure, but yeah, even users like me will be happy to use LN for smaller payments. I'd be able to transact more often and with risks on those small amounts. I don't because there isn't a cheap and fast way.

[HeRetiK]

I cannot agree in full here. He also says wise words about scarcity at all. If you spend recources to on side, there is always another side suffering.

Translate

If you spend things on 2nd layer dev, on chain scaling does not get full support. Choose what you want bitcoin to be. I vote for on chain as much as possible. Its our best security.

That's not how software development works. The whole point of separate abstraction layers (or protocol layers in this case) is that you can have separate development efforts working on different parts of the problem without interference. Either way, if on-chain scaling would be as simple as changing the blocksize variable, there'd be no development effort needed for on-chain scaling in the first place.

[hv_]

I cannot agree in full here. He also says wise words about scarcity at all. If you spend recources to on side, there is always another side suffering.

Translate

If you spend things on 2nd layer dev, on chain scaling does not get full support. Choose what you want bitcoin to be. I vote for on chain as much as possible. Its our best security.

That's not how software development works. The whole point of separate abstraction layers (or protocol layers in this case) is that you can have separate development efforts working on different parts of the problem without interference. Either way, if on-chain scaling would be as simple as changing the blocksize variable, there'd be no development effort needed for on-chain scaling in the first place.

Again, not fully right. If you take the protocol layer, tell me what might help to scale: thin protocol, few simple rules, many teams competing - or that what we have now ?

[jonald_fyookball]

I cannot agree in full here. He also says wise words about scarcity at all. If you spend recources to on side, there is always another side suffering.

Translate

If you spend things on 2nd layer dev, on chain scaling does not get full support. Choose what you want bitcoin to be. I vote for on chain as much as possible. Its our best security.

That's not how software development works. The whole point of separate abstraction layers (or protocol layers in this case) is that you can have separate development efforts working on different parts of the problem without interference. Either way, if on-chain scaling would be as simple as changing the blocksize variable, there'd be no development effort needed for on-chain scaling in the first place.

Software separate isn't the issue, but rather economics.  Proof of Work secures the base layer.   Any money for fees, etc that's not on the base layer is draining security funding from that base layer.

[HeRetiK]

Again, not fully right. If you take the protocol layer, tell me what might help to scale: thin protocol, few simple rules, many teams competing - or that what we have now ?

A thin protocol with a few simple rules is what he have now. Moving scaling details to a second layer would help keep it that way. Or are you arguing in favour of adding complexity to the base layer?

Software separate isn't the issue, but rather economics.  Proof of Work secures the base layer.   Any money for fees, etc that's not on the base layer is draining security funding from that base layer.

Miners still get their block rewards and transaction fees. Even in the far future when block rewards are gone they still would get at least the amount of transaction fees that they are getting now (or like 6-12 months ago before blocks started to get full).

[jonald_fyookball]

Again, not fully right. If you take the protocol layer, tell me what might help to scale: thin protocol, few simple rules, many teams competing - or that what we have now ?

A thin protocol with a few simple rules is what he have now. Moving scaling details to a second layer would help keep it that way. Or are you arguing in favour of adding complexity to the base layer?

Software separate isn't the issue, but rather economics.  Proof of Work secures the base layer.   Any money for fees, etc that's not on the base layer is draining security funding from that base layer.

Miners still get their block rewards and transaction fees. Even in the far future when block rewards are gone they still would get at least the amount of transaction fees that they are getting now (or like 6-12 months ago before blocks started to get full).

Yes there is plenty of money for miners for now.  But I dont' see any reason we need to force second layers.

[hv_]

Again, not fully right. If you take the protocol layer, tell me what might help to scale: thin protocol, few simple rules, many teams competing - or that what we have now ?

A thin protocol with a few simple rules is what he have now. Moving scaling details to a second layer would help keep it that way. Or are you arguing in favour of adding complexity to the base layer?

Software separate isn't the issue, but rather economics.  Proof of Work secures the base layer.   Any money for fees, etc that's not on the base layer is draining security funding from that base layer.

Miners still get their block rewards and transaction fees. Even in the far future when block rewards are gone they still would get at least the amount of transaction fees that they are getting now (or like 6-12 months ago before blocks started to get full).

The projection is real mass business. Even a tiny share for 2nd layer central crap might cost you a bunch of bitcoin because of some lower security you cannot grasp yet. Corps and banks are way more picky on that and can afford huge risk analysis. They will all stay off bitcoin and you stay nichy. Good bye

[HeRetiK]

The projection is real mass business.

Of course it is. That's why we need to consider other options than linear on-chain scaling.

Even a tiny share for 2nd layer central crap might cost you a bunch of bitcoin because of some lower security you cannot grasp yet.

[citation needed]

Corps and banks are way more picky on that and can afford huge risk analysis. They will all stay off bitcoin and you stay nichy.

Bitcoins biggest challenges when it comes to business and banks are legal and economic. The technical aspects are miniscule.

Good bye

Have a nice day

[johnscoin]

Fair points for sure, but yeah, even users like me will be happy to use LN for smaller payments. I'd be able to transact more often and with risks on those small amounts. I don't because there isn't a cheap and fast way.

But why crippling the on-chain usage? No one has answered this question reasonably.

[Wind_FURY]

jonald_fyookball, we have seen that you have "proven" cannot provide decentralized scaling. Without any arguments made from the developers of LN around, let us assume that you are correct. Then what is your proposal on how to do it right?

[hv_]

The projection is real mass business.

Of course it is. That's why we need to consider other options than linear on-chain scaling.

Even a tiny share for 2nd layer central crap might cost you a bunch of bitcoin because of some lower security you cannot grasp yet.

[citation needed]

Corps and banks are way more picky on that and can afford huge risk analysis. They will all stay off bitcoin and you stay nichy.

Bitcoins biggest challenges when it comes to business and banks are legal and economic. The technical aspects are miniscule.

Good bye

Have a nice day

Tx !

Entry point for big business is always risk / reward.  RIsks: There a lots of: Operational / Market. (Reputation, Systemic, Counterparty, Legal.../ Volatility) Hope you know this a bit.

If your riskmanagers throw the red flag on only one of these parts and you cannot fix / control / MINIMIZE*  them - bitcoin is OUT - byebye.

Either blockstream knows all that shit and want to do only a quick buck - or they kill bitcoin not knowing better.

Think bigger

*MINIMIZE risk = MAXIMIZE on-chain scaling - easy to get.

 

[spartacusrex]

RECAP :

1) Jhonny (bless him..) posts his document telling us that LN won't work and that he has proven it mathematically.

2) Bram Cohen (Inventor of BitTorrent) replies :

In this analysis nodes aren’t bothering to make sure that they have any connections at all. Shockingly, if a single node has no connections whatsoever then no amount of other connections in the system will make it routable. If instead every node enforce that it has at least three connections then these problems evaporate and everything works fine. I’m not being flippant here, this analysis really is that dumb.

Also there’s nothing wrong with long routes. They settle out in the middle just fine, despite the author’s dismissiveness to the possibility that they can.
This is not to say that a completely random homogenous network is an ideal or even necessarily a good way of setting up routing, but it works fine as long as every node makes sure that it has a minimal level of connectivity.

3) Jhonny retorts :

Bram, are you sure you understand the article? “At least 3 connections” means you have to divide your money up “at least 3 ways”. With only 3 open channels, you’d be then relying on long routes which make actually getting your payment through exponentially less likely, as the math illustrates. Not sure what “settle out in the middle” means to you.

4) Bram retorts :

‘Settle out in the middle’ means using the smart transactions bit of Lighting so that there’s no lending happening in the middle. Maybe you should learn about how technologies work before posting tirades about them.
As for your math, I can’t tell if you’re disingenuous or just stupid, but this is a very simple concept: The probabilities of different routes working aren’t independent of each other, because the target node will notice if they have no connections at all and form some, so if some routes don’t work that increases the probability of other routes working.

If you assume that peers don’t make sure they have connections then your math is mostly correct, but your claim is that ‘lightning network can’t work’, not ‘lightning network doesn’t work with this asinine implementation I came up with’, which is what you actually showed.

5) Jhonny fires back :

With all due respect, I believe it is you who is being “disingenuous or just stupid.” The target node cannot form new connections without doing an on-chain transaction, which defeats the whole point: Why not just send an on-chain transaction in the first place, without the LN.

....

  .. as always.. please fasten your seat belt and make up your own mind.

ps.. in 5).. Jhonny is saying that the fact you have to make a single on chain txn to start using LN (and then potentially do infinite txns), negates LN. I'm not kidding.