Bitcoin Forum
January 16, 2019, 12:44:26 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Lightning capital lock-in investment question  (Read 388 times)
BitcoinFlipcoin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 11, 2017, 03:37:15 PM
 #1

Opening a bidirectional payment channel on the lightning network requires an initial BTC 'deposit' from both the user and the network provider.

Other than operating a LN node yourself, is there any way a BTC holder could 'invest' in a lightning network provider (trustlessly) to supply the node's capital? (And presumably earn interest.)

I feel like this could be a way to mitigate LN centralization.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
achow101
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1938


bc1qshxkrpe4arppq89fpzm6c0tpdvx5cfkve2c8kl


View Profile WWW
August 11, 2017, 07:38:03 PM
 #2

There is no "network provider". There are only 2 participants in a lightning channel. Only those two participants can fund the channel. So no, you cannot "invest" in a payment channel.

JackH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 381
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 11, 2017, 10:38:15 PM
 #3

There is actually some merit to the question. When a lightning channel gets established, its enabled with a value "from" one end to "another" end. This means that if value primarily flows in one direction, the channel can become estinguished and basically useless in one direction.

One way to mitigate this would be to accept "loans" from other people by having them setting up channels towards the very active channel that is estinguished and use the newly forwarded balance to continue operating the original channel.

This can be useful in cases of a very well established channel via other channels, and could be a business case in itself that a channels connectivity is interesting as it can route cheaper or more directly. While this may lead to centralization, it can be mitigated by obviously creating channel connections to those the active channel has connections to.

It all comes down to how well a crawler can map the network and find active paths. If this works there will never be any super hubs.

<helo> funny that this proposal grows the maximum block size to 8GB, and is seen as a compromise
<helo> oh, you don't like a 20x increase? well how about 8192x increase?
<JackH> lmao
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!