Lightning Network vs Bitcoin cash

[irukandji]

 While lightning network provides a much better solution by compressing the fees and times by a great scale and making BTC ready for mass adoption. But what until it doesn't hits the market? BTC dominance is already under 45% they need to launch it very soon to avoid further questions on the supreme command of bitcoin.

You missed the point that LN, now using a version of Tor based routing, will be UTTERLY inefficient. You are trying to shoehorn fast payment methods into a subsystem whose primary objective was to obfuscate the very connections that need to be optimised to keep fees and time reasonable.

Have a look at bolts 4-7 specs to see how hideously complex and unfit for purpose these layers have become.

When they finally realise that this is not going to work on any scale ( like Poons original, now binned proposal) it too will need to be binned. Welcome to your next 18 month delay.

LN is using a version of Tor?
Is there somewhere I can read up on this?  And the rest of the stuff you mentioned?    thanks

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

LN is using a version of Tor?
Is there somewhere I can read up on this?  And the rest of the stuff you mentioned?    thanks

The github is the least nuanced source, start with this:

https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md

Follow the links there to go through the other layers.

[irukandji]

LN is using a version of Tor?
Is there somewhere I can read up on this?  And the rest of the stuff you mentioned?    thanks

The github is the least nuanced source, start with this:

https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md

Follow the links there to go through the other layers.

Thank you

[uniqueCoin]

it seems like some smart people have been visiting this thread so maybe you will be able to help me out
my knowledge is limited but i'd like to learn more

as far as i know there are 2 main problems with big blocks: blockchain size and blocks propagation time

solution for blockchain size seems easy:
we can just from time to time archive old parts of blockchain removing middle-man transactions from main chain

for the solution of blocks propagation time i had this idea, maybe you can point out why it's bad:
we increase block size and make it so miner who solves puzzle picks transactions not for current block but for 2 blocks ahead
miner who mined new block had added at the bottom sha256 of his transactions list for 2 blocks ahead, he sends out 2 packets:
    1st small packet consisting of 2 things: sha256 of his transactions list and solution for block
    2nd big packet of transactions for 2 blocks ahead (or whatever best current method is to send less data)
1st packet propagates very fast and since everyone was mining same transactions (passed from 2 blocks before) everyone can easily verify if solution is valid just with this 2 recieved information (they cannot yet verify if sha256 is correct, they trust it because proof of work)
2nd packet propagates slowly, but it has time since we are all working on next block and it propagates during that work (now they can verify sha256 of transactions list and list itself and if something is wrong go back to working on previous block)

[Xylber]

Lightning nodes will remove the decentralization, and those who hold those nodes will have the power. Who will hold these nodes? The banks. Bitcoin sold his soul.

Agree, I'm starting to see a lot of coins who are taking away, little by little, some of the users power

[Shu1llerr]

in general, I don't understand why this is a need to discuss. because bitcoin cash this cryptocurrency peer-to-peer with a large size of the block in 8mb. and lightning this payment system that is designed to pay cryptocurrency. maybe I don't quite understand and in question about lightning bitcoin then I think this once no one desired Fork. for whom you need it, if the modernization requires the whole system, not one currency.

[Shu1llerr]

I looked at the code on github but about Tor and the anonymity of the system, this is a frank step, to which they must make a difficult decision. this covers the black part of the market and the technology that should make a breakthrough in the network should not be associated with this. although this is just my opinion, I do not know whether it coincides with the community

LN is using a version of Tor?
Is there somewhere I can read up on this?  And the rest of the stuff you mentioned?    thanks

The github is the least nuanced source, start with this:

https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md

Follow the links there to go through the other layers.

[psibenik]

Kingaltcoins is bang on in my opinion. Block size increase is only a small temporary solution to a larger problem. It's not clear to me just how effective this lightning network will be, but I forsee a fall for Bcash, a rise is quality alcoins (that are better than btc), and a chance for btc to remain in the lead due to first movers advantage.

[Rinaze]

Does anybody knows if there're short term plan by the official BTC developer team on how are they going to tackle the congested blockchain in the meantime? The 3rd and 4th gen currency coins are already by far ahead despite not being tested as much as Bitcoin.

Will they be making an exception to preharps decrease the mining difficulty to help ease slightly (not sure if it helps; just a random thought) or BTC is practically handicapped until LN comes out? LN will probably still take quite a (long) while..

[villuta]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.
Bitcoin was ment to be peer-to-peer money not gold 2.0 like they are claiming atm.
If those core devs didnt fk things up, ALOT of retailers would be using bitcoin already and there wouldnt be bitcoin cash.
And some legacy corp's would be losing a lot of money right now.
Personally i think some entities want to get their hands on bitcoin wheel before old banking system falls apart.
People who attack bitcoin cash or roger ver are just brainwashed, that guy been in this industry from beginning and problably has better knowledge of bitcoin and economy than all of us + some moneyhungry devs.
Bitcoin cash tx per sec isnt much of a thing right now because its couple months old and got no infrastructure but thats gonna change massively..

[cellard]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.
Bitcoin was ment to be peer-to-peer money not gold 2.0 like they are claiming atm.
If those core devs didnt fk things up, ALOT of retailers would be using bitcoin already and there wouldnt be bitcoin cash.
And some legacy corp's would be losing a lot of money right now.
Personally i think some entities want to get their hands on bitcoin wheel before old banking system falls apart.
People who attack bitcoin cash or roger ver are just brainwashed, that guy been in this industry from beginning and problably has better knowledge of bitcoin and economy than all of us + some moneyhungry devs.
Bitcoin cash tx per sec isnt much of a thing right now because its couple months old and got no infrastructure but thats gonna change massively..

Bitcoin cannot be "peer to peer" if you have to go through a corporation that is hosting a massive chunk of the nodes, which could be compromised and therefore censoring transactions at will, and that is the future of any "as-big-as-needed" blocks approach. The blocks would be massive, and as a direct result, the network would be centralized.
I don't know why big blockers fail to realize this simple fact. They either don't care, or they are stupid.

Forget about Blockstream, it's a private business. Even if Blockstream didn't exist, the problem of "as-big-as-needed" blocks approach, would still be here. Roger Ver is on record claiming that the blocksize must be made higher as long as you get full blocks. Well, all an attacker next to do is to spam the network (just as they do with the Bitcoin network) then the blocks would be full, and then continue doing this as the blocksize is increased indefinitely. The result: only a handful of corporations control both the nodes and mining on Bitcoin. At that point, you might as well use Ripple.

[Spendulus]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

[cellard]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".

[Spendulus]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".

That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency.

As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe.

These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math.

I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow.

[hv_]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".

That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency.

As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe.

These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math.

I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow.

We are only sitting in a time slice here and nobody can see what works in the future. The best way is to try.

Bitcoin started as an experiment and still is.

Now we have two mostly orthogonal versions and we should give both room to show what works. Try to fight one down is pretty inmature and shows only good trolling qualities.

In my vision it can only win that version having the most simplistic protocol layer and highest degrees of freedom to build on top = rapid adoption.

[Spendulus]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".

That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency.

As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe.

These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math.

I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow.

We are only sitting in a time slice here and nobody can see what works in the future. The best way is to try.

Bitcoin started as an experiment and still is.

Now we have two mostly orthogonal versions and we should give both room to show what works. Try to fight one down is pretty inmature and shows only good trolling qualities.

In my vision it can only win that version having the most simplistic protocol layer and highest degrees of freedom to build on top = rapid adoption.

This is certainly true, however we can use eighth grade math to figure how transaction speed and volume scale with a simple change of block size.

Just pick a desirable range for future volume, and ask how do we get there. Let's take 100x current or 300 transactions per second.

It is not required to test solutions which will fail at 2x or 4x current volume.

[cellard]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".

That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency.

As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe.

These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math.

I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow.

We are only sitting in a time slice here and nobody can see what works in the future. The best way is to try.

Bitcoin started as an experiment and still is.

Now we have two mostly orthogonal versions and we should give both room to show what works. Try to fight one down is pretty inmature and shows only good trolling qualities.

In my vision it can only win that version having the most simplistic protocol layer and highest degrees of freedom to build on top = rapid adoption.

This is certainly true, however we can use eighth grade math to figure how transaction speed and volume scale with a simple change of block size.

Just pick a desirable range for future volume, and ask how do we get there. Let's take 100x current or 300 transactions per second.

It is not required to test solutions which will fail at 2x or 4x current volume.

We already have studies that show at what rate nodes would get wiped out at current block size and in increases of 2MB up to 8MB. This study was developed by Bitfury:



So if BCash was getting used AND spammed as BTC does, blocks would get filled and 95% of current nodes would get wiped out of the system.

[hv_]

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".

That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency.

As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe.

These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math.

I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow.

We are only sitting in a time slice here and nobody can see what works in the future. The best way is to try.

Bitcoin started as an experiment and still is.

Now we have two mostly orthogonal versions and we should give both room to show what works. Try to fight one down is pretty inmature and shows only good trolling qualities.

In my vision it can only win that version having the most simplistic protocol layer and highest degrees of freedom to build on top = rapid adoption.

This is certainly true, however we can use eighth grade math to figure how transaction speed and volume scale with a simple change of block size.

Just pick a desirable range for future volume, and ask how do we get there. Let's take 100x current or 300 transactions per second.

It is not required to test solutions which will fail at 2x or 4x current volume.

We already have studies that show at what rate nodes would get wiped out at current block size and in increases of 2MB up to 8MB. This study was developed by Bitfury:



So if BCash was getting used AND spammed as BTC does, blocks would get filled and 95% of current nodes would get wiped out of the system.

Again, Bitcoin Cash is about scaling on the miner node network. Core claims that you would need lots of non mining nodes where Bitcoin Cash claims non mining nodes are slowing down the network and are not needed minimumfor a needed degree of decentralization. Here it starts to be seen orthogonal to each other. And I understand why many have issues to accept this. No math needed up to this point.

[Taras]

Does anybody knows if there're short term plan by the official BTC developer team on how are they going to tackle the congested blockchain in the meantime?

Make segwit easier to use by implementing it in the core GUI. We haven't felt its effects very much yet because nobody actually uses it. Once that changes, then we'll start having 1.4 MB blocks.

[chrissbiggs]

The Bitcoin will always stay top coin no matter what. BCH has no chance to over take it