Lightening Network is a Trap.

[Ucy]

Lightening Network is a Trap?


Just finished reading about Lightening Network on the Internet, to be frank, am not comfortable with what I just saw.
Am beginning to think that Lightening Network is a Government tool or idea to have total control of all Bitcoin.


My questions:
1. Seems like only Signed Contract will be passing through Lightening Network and not the Bitcoin itself, right?

2. Will government be able to cease people's Bitcoin after implementation of lightening Network if they wish to?

3. Is Lightning Network implementation mandatory or just optional?


Here are what am sure will happen if Lightening Network is mandatory:   

* Government will be able to Monitor all Bitcoin transaction.

* Every single Bitcoin company will be forced to obtain license before using the Network

* Finally,  Government can able to stop all Bitcoin transaction any time & as long as they want.

[1715433996]

1715433996

[1715433996]

1715433996

[1715433996]

1715433996

[pedrog]

You don't have to use Lightning Network if you don't feel comfortable with it.

There are a few other projects similar to Lightning Network in the making, and you don't have to use those also.

[hv_]

You don't have to use Lightning Network if you don't feel comfortable with it.

There are a few other projects similar to Lightning Network in the making, and you don't have to use those also.

Yeah. But if LN and others will be used heavily and blocksize stays as is (SW /1MB) then tx fees will explode to the sky and you will be forced by fee (fbf) to use it unless you are not a big whale.

[pedrog]

You don't have to use Lightning Network if you don't feel comfortable with it.

There are a few other projects similar to Lightning Network in the making, and you don't have to use those also.

Yeah. But if LN and others will be used heavily and blocksize stays as is (SW /1MB) then tx fees will explode to the sky and you will be forced by fee (fbf) to use it unless you are not a big whale.

Just use some other altcoin for small transactions.

you always have a choice.

[BillyBobZorton]

Both bigger blocksize and lightning networks increase centralization, but bigger blocksize increases centralization in an horrible way, anyone that isn't an idiot can see this fact, so lightning network is the best option we have if we want to see poor people using bitcoin too.

PS: I dont know the details of LN because im not an expert engineer in the field, but it's easy to assume that anything that isn't an onchain transaction decreases decentralization to a certain degree, but onchain with huge blocks is even a bigger mess since govs can shut down the network anyway.

[Dude.Lebowski]

Lightening Network is a Trap?


Just finished reading about Lightening Network on the Internet, to be frank, am not comfortable with what I just saw.
Am beginning to think that Lightening Network is a Government tool or idea to have total control of all Bitcoin.


My questions:
1. Seems like only Signed Contract will be passing through Lightening Network and not the Bitcoin itself, right?

2. Will government be able to cease people's Bitcoin after implementation of lightening Network if they wish to?

3. Is Lightning Network implementation mandatory or just optional?


Here are what am sure will happen if Lightening Network is mandatory:   

* Government will be able to Monitor all Bitcoin transaction.

* Every single Bitcoin company will be forced to obtain license before using the Network

* Finally,  Government can able to stop all Bitcoin transaction any time & as long as they want.

It might be. Good thing we can just ignore it.

[enhu]

Its a double edge I think. Implementing Lightning network will lead Bitcoin to be approved on ETF which eventually will help the price to rise up which is what we all want but at the same time can be a serious threat when it comes to tax and centralization.

[The One]

Both bigger blocksize and lightning networks increase centralization, but bigger blocksize increases centralization in an horrible way, anyone that isn't an idiot can see this fact, so lightning network is the best option we have if we want to see poor people using bitcoin too.

PS: I dont know the details of LN because im not an expert engineer in the field, but it's easy to assume that anything that isn't an onchain transaction decreases decentralization to a certain degree, but onchain with huge blocks is even a bigger mess since govs can shut down the network anyway.

Don't be daft.

[hv_]

You don't have to use Lightning Network if you don't feel comfortable with it.

There are a few other projects similar to Lightning Network in the making, and you don't have to use those also.

Yeah. But if LN and others will be used heavily and blocksize stays as is (SW /1MB) then tx fees will explode to the sky and you will be forced by fee (fbf) to use it unless you are not a big whale.

Just use some other altcoin for small transactions.

you always have a choice.

Not needed if you free the on chain scaling. I also cannot find your limit minded advice in Satoshis white paper. i guess you post in wrong forum section...

[hv_]

Both bigger blocksize and lightning networks increase centralization, but bigger blocksize increases centralization in an horrible way, anyone that isn't an idiot can see this fact, so lightning network is the best option we have if we want to see poor people using bitcoin too.

PS: I dont know the details of LN because im not an expert engineer in the field, but it's easy to assume that anything that isn't an onchain transaction decreases decentralization to a certain degree, but onchain with huge blocks is even a bigger mess since govs can shut down the network anyway.

LN coin, RSK, MU2coin,... are all not real bitcoin. Discussed so manny times now again and again. Any 2nd layer stuff is not same in manny aspects as Satoshis bitcoin (security!!!)

You also should better go post in altcoin section. Not here.

[digaran]

Let us for a few seconds assume that governments are behind lightening network, do you think Bitcoin is the only available digital currency in the world? when people see their coins are not under their own control then it is no longer called a decentralized currency.there is also the ability to fork whenever you'd like to. after they take control then what will be the next move to take control of LTC and other alts as well? they will need years and trillions to do that.

[franky1]

"bigger blocks" do not cause massive centralisation

node consensus agree's to what is an acceptable blocksize. so the blocksize WILL NOT!!! explode into 'gigabytes by midnight' it will grow at a NATURAL rate that nodes majority can accept.

if only the BScartel fanboys realised that!!!

however with lightning, its about moving funds into contracts where there is a counterparty having dual control of your funds.
ALSO
when people put funds into an LN they are no longer bothered about the blockchain as their utility and daily use is then not on the blockchain. so most users of LN will just turn off their bitcoin full node and just use their LN SPV node.

this will cause more dilution of the bitcoin node count.
along with features like -no witness, pruned which those still running the full bitcoin node, if they trigger the no witness/pruned. no longer become full network nodes (analogy: torrent seeds) because they no longer hold the full validation data to allow others to get/sync.

..
in short
bigger blocks are not the threat because there will not be "GB by midnight" threat. but node dilution via people no longer running full nodes due to LN/no witness/pruning is a threat

..
as for worries of government control.
dont throw all your funds into LN contracts that are BScartel hub controlled. just put pocket money amounts in for daily/weekly spends and keep your main funds away from LN

[Victorycoin]

You don't have to use Lightning Network if you don't feel comfortable with it.

There are a few other projects similar to Lightning Network in the making, and you don't have to use those also.

Yeah. But if LN and others will be used heavily and blocksize stays as is (SW /1MB) then tx fees will explode to the sky and you will be forced by fee (fbf) to use it unless you are not a big whale.

Just use some other altcoin for small transactions.

you always have a choice.

Well that isn't a credible solution  and only goes to encourage  people  to turn to altcoins. Must say that Bitcoin's early bird advantage ought not be taken for granted, change is the only thing that stays permanent here on earth and opportunity lost is much harder to recover. If we really want to see what we are or would be missing in Bitcoin, we only have to look at Litecoin, which is now pioneering innovations in the industry.

[hv_]

And if you all beleive in the game theoretical fundaments of keeping bitcoin safe and allined then the flexibility of the blocksize is a small pice in this genius construct of Satoshi.

If you try to fix this artificially than you dont belive in bitcoins manifest and show your paranoidity or flawed interests (power?).

[25hashcoin]

We must band together and boycott Core/Segwit/Lightning as it turns out to be an elaborate and hostile attack.

[leopard2]

"bigger blocks" do not cause massive centralisation

node consensus agree's to what is an acceptable blocksize. so the blocksize WILL NOT!!! explode into 'gigabytes by midnight' it will grow at a NATURAL rate that nodes majority can accept.

You are funny.

Just that the node consensus will then be in the hands of the majority, AKA Bitmain, because they will be the only ones left mining...and they have the resources for gigabyte blocks.

 

[franky1]

You are funny.

Just that the node consensus will then be in the hands of the majority, AKA Bitmain, because they will be the only ones left mining...and they have the resources for gigabyte blocks.

 

you are even funnier
it doesnt matter if a block was solved with 50,000,000,000 hash attempts or just 50 hash attempts.. the mining side is useless without the symbiotic relationship of the usernodes.

if the entire network rejects a block because its bigger than the nodes like. then that block is rejected.

evenBU learned that lesson in about 3 seconds after trying it by accident.

yep they made a block bigger than what the nodes prefered so within 3 seconds of seeing the block.. it was gone... drama over.
no argument of hash, no argument ovr brand. just simply, it didnt fit the general rules of consensus, so wasnt accepted.

it appears people simply do not understand consensus but will stupidly follow the reddit scripted fud

[Jordan23]

You are funny.

Just that the node consensus will then be in the hands of the majority, AKA Bitmain, because they will be the only ones left mining...and they have the resources for gigabyte blocks.

 

you are even funnier
it doesnt matter if a block was solved with 50,000,000,000 hash attempts or just 50 hash attempts.. the mining side is useless without the symbiotic relationship of the usernodes.

if the entire network rejects a block because its bigger than the nodes like. then that block is rejected.

evenBU learned that lesson in about 3 seconds after trying it by accident.

yep they made a block bigger than what the nodes prefered so within 3 seconds of seeing the block.. it was gone... drama over.
no argument of hash, no argument ovr brand. just simply, it didnt fit the general rules of consensus, so wasnt accepted.

it appears people simply do not understand consensus but will stupidly follow the reddit scripted fud

You are fake news. How much are you getting paid?

[d5000]

My questions:
1. Seems like only Signed Contract will be passing through Lightening Network and not the Bitcoin itself, right?

You could call it that way - at least there are not "blockchain movements", if that is the essence of "Bitcoin" for you.

2. Will government be able to cease people's Bitcoin after implementation of lightening Network if they wish to?

No. How do you think that could happen?

3. Is Lightning Network implementation mandatory or just optional?

Optional. There is not even a need to choose between "Lightning" or "On-chain". There are also pegged sidechains as a technology candidate. There is already a pretty well working decentralized pegged sidechain almost nobody knows about - BitBTC of the Bitshares universe. But two-way-pegged chains like Drivechains will even provide a better peg.

* Government will be able to Monitor all Bitcoin transaction.

Everybody can already do that even today - not only government(s).

* Every single Bitcoin company will be forced to obtain license before using the Network

That's independent from Lightning. If you live in a country/state with heavy Bitcoin regulation, then it may be the case even today.

* Finally,  Government can able to stop all Bitcoin transaction any time & as long as they want.

Nope. At least Lightning does not provide any tool for that. If a government shuts down all hubs in your country, you can always use hubs outside of your "governments" jurisdiction.

[iluvpie60]

Segwit will mess everything up because the ability to do a 51% attack will be able to reverse all previous transactions. As it stands now if someone did a 51% attack they would only be able to only reverse 2 or 3 or 4 of the last blocks.

Segwit will make it so everything ever done can be reversed and mess it all up. Don't do it.