Great News For Bitcoin! Lightening Network First Payment Was Successful!

[Anti-Cen]

Even a decentralized system is only as strong as its weakest link if it has a single point of failure. See Ripple and how tokens are issued.

DNS does not have single point of failure and uses a tree structure of command but even if you took the top node down the system still works
and if needs be the structure could assign itself a new top level node using voting. Think more down the lines of Coordinators in relation to coins
to break nodes down into useful groups. Tree structure will scale better than what we have now, no brainier.

Coordinators will all so deal with trust rating so nodes that start playing stupid get blocked so good bye BS about 51% attack and hello GUID node
registration.

The consensus protocol itself is quite interesting and I'm sure that LN has borrowed some pages from it (assuming there is no prior work on which both protocols are based upon) but I still find it hard to trust a payment network that relies on a central corporate entity for both development and token issuance. I'm sure that Ripple has merits of its own but it's not quite what I expect from a cryptocurrency.

The currency and network has got to be separated and it will be in the end so we all have a public address and any currency gets sent to the address
so in effect the wallet has one address instead of ten pub/private keys which are still present but used after handshake and protocol is setup.

PoW is not about preventing spam transactions, it's about preventing double-spend attacks. Before PoW came along you couldn't rely on keeping a valid, reliable ledger state without a central entity acting as arbiter. Bitcoin's master stroke is making the network not only fault-tolerant against attackers, but actually using what would usually be an attack -- ie. brute force -- to protect the network from the very same class of attacks.

Spamming, double spend both prevented by PoW from what i read but PoW stupid and is being dumped by everyone even in the forks.

I'm not sure I quite follow you here. You don't need to rely on DNS to connect to other nodes. You can't use DNS spoofing to fake transactions. Worst case you could probably prevent specific nodes from sending or receiving transactions, but that would require a lot of targeted resources without much impact on Bitcoin as a whole.

Virgin nodes at startup use DNS to get list of well know nodes and i can find you the address if you like but after that it uses cached IP-Address to find
a live node on the network and nodes relay between each other a list and the state of other nodes. I am talking new node start up.

Assuming you haven't already, you should really look into how LN works. You might be surprised that it's not quite the plaster you expect it to be.

I did and you did not deal with what Alice sends to bob and you are forced to accept Coordinators (Hubs/Gateways) in LN anyway so why not
wrap it up by breaking the 200gb block-chain down into more a tree structure and then it will scale better and you don't need IOU's or fake tokens.

Block-Chain is a liked list of headers but groups of nodes organised by Coordinators can deal with sections to provide redundancy within the section so in effect the LN patch up
(or rewrite in disguise) is at the wrong level and as a transaction hits one set of node then a request will be sent to another set of nodes but after that the reply will be cached
Here I am talking about having to trace back down the chain to the origin of each coin part back to when it was mined

Mining is a waste of time, nodes get paid for transactions, far too much time and effort plus code is dedicated to printing new coins
and ten possible alternatives exist here so stop the competition where effectively nodes are fighting other nodes and making hardware
manufactures and big oil rich and happy. THIS PART IS THE BIGGEST FUCK-UP EVER DEVISED MY MAN!

Break the current 200gb Block-chain down to say 16 X 16 sections and each section has a group of nodes then you will start getting some speed but if i am honest
it's patching something instead of having a white sheet of paper to work from and i think that's whats needed and i will add this concept of public ledger we all
love and trust does allow anyone to clone it and produce a forks so that needs a long term solution 

Maybe wallets need voting rights so we can appoint people as trustees and then go at it from that angle because all S-M has done is left a mess that won't scale, wastes
energy and started CPU wars plus allows forks and clones.

[HeRetiK]

DNS does not have single point of failure and uses a tree structure of command but even if you took the top node down the system still works
and if needs be the structure could assign itself a new top level node using voting. Think more down the lines of Coordinators in relation to coins
to break nodes down into useful groups. Tree structure will scale better than what we have now, no brainier.

1) DNS is not secure, 2) easily blocked and 3) not used to transact millions of dollars worth of currency.

Coordinators will all so deal with trust rating so nodes that start playing stupid get blocked so good bye BS about 51% attack and hello GUID node
registration.

Coordinators require trust, which is something cryptocurrencies are striving to get rid of.

The consensus protocol itself is quite interesting and I'm sure that LN has borrowed some pages from it (assuming there is no prior work on which both protocols are based upon) but I still find it hard to trust a payment network that relies on a central corporate entity for both development and token issuance. I'm sure that Ripple has merits of its own but it's not quite what I expect from a cryptocurrency.

The currency and network has got to be separated and it will be in the end so we all have a public address and any currency gets sent to the address
so in effect the wallet has one address instead of ten pub/private keys which are still present but used after handshake and protocol is setup.

Separating the currency from the network leads to counterparty risk.

PoW is not about preventing spam transactions, it's about preventing double-spend attacks. Before PoW came along you couldn't rely on keeping a valid, reliable ledger state without a central entity acting as arbiter. Bitcoin's master stroke is making the network not only fault-tolerant against attackers, but actually using what would usually be an attack -- ie. brute force -- to protect the network from the very same class of attacks.

Spamming, double spend both prevented by PoW from what i read but PoW stupid and is being dumped by everyone even in the forks.

PoW has nothing to do with spam transactions. "PoW is stupid" is not a counter-argument. All meaningful BTC hardforks are relying on PoW so far.

I'm not sure I quite follow you here. You don't need to rely on DNS to connect to other nodes. You can't use DNS spoofing to fake transactions. Worst case you could probably prevent specific nodes from sending or receiving transactions, but that would require a lot of targeted resources without much impact on Bitcoin as a whole.

Virgin nodes at startup use DNS to get list of well know nodes and i can find you the address if you like but after that it uses cached IP-Address to find
a live node on the network and nodes relay between each other a list and the state of other nodes. I am talking new node start up.

Everyone can set up nodes using IP addresses instead of domain names. The application of DNS is irrelevant to this discussion.

Assuming you haven't already, you should really look into how LN works. You might be surprised that it's not quite the plaster you expect it to be.

I did and you did not deal with what Alice sends to bob and you are forced to accept Coordinators (Hubs/Gateways) in LN anyway so why not
wrap it up by breaking the 200gb block-chain down into more a tree structure and then it will scale better and you don't need IOU's or fake tokens.

No such things as coordinators / hubs / gateways in the LN network topology. Alice is a LN node. Bob is a LN node. Everyone en route between Alice and Bob is a node.

Once again, no IOUs. No fake tokens. All very real, time based transactions.

I know too little about blockchain sharding to argue either for or against it, I guess I'll watch Ethereum to see how this works out. Not sure if there ever has been any discourse of applying sharding to the Bitcoin blockchain. It seems to come with its own set of problems however.

Block-Chain is a liked list of headers but groups of nodes organised by Coordinators can deal with sections to provide redundancy within the section so in effect the LN patch up (or rewrite in disguise) is at the wrong level and as a transaction hits one set of node then a request will be sent to another set of nodes but after that the reply will be cached.

Assuming blockchain sharding relies on coordinators, we have a weak point and needless complexity right there. I do assume though that there are more effective approaches than that.

LN is neither a rewrite nor a patch btw, it's simply an additional protocol layer. Much like OMNI and XCP before it. And like HTTP on top of TCP/IP before even that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the reply will be cached". If this still refers to LN, a channel state is maintained, but kept up to date by enforcing state updates by using presigned timelocked transactions.

Here I am talking about having to trace back down the chain to the origin of each coin part back to when it was mined

If this still refers to LN, coins can still be traced back to their origin, even when using LN.

Break the current 200gb Block-chain down to say 16 X 16 sections and each section has a group of nodes then you will start getting some speed but if i am honest
it's patching something instead of having a white sheet of paper to work from and i think that's whats needed and i will add this concept of public ledger we all
love and trust does allow anyone to clone it and produce a forks so that needs a long term solution

You're welcome to fork then Or contribute to one of the alts that are eying blockchain sharding right now (assuming ETH is not the only one).

Maybe wallets need voting rights so we can appoint people as trustees and then go at it from that angle because all S-M has done is left a mess that won't scale, wastes
energy and started CPU wars plus allows forks and clones.

Read up on sybil attacks on why this is a bad idea. Also the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to go trustless. Trying to create a trustee network comes with problems of its own. It's barely working with Root and Intermediary CAs. It becomes even less reliable with incentives to defect, such as the case with digital cash.

[Anti-Cen]

1) DNS is not secure, 2) easily blocked and 3) not used to transact millions of dollars worth of currency.

1. Coordinators don't store money 2. DNS stood test of time 3 Nothing blocks up more than BTC.
4. Stop jumping around with vague arguments

Coordinators require trust, which is something cryptocurrencies are striving to get rid of.

No they are not and LN uses hubs so stop shooting yourself in the foot

Separating the currency from the network leads to counterparty risk.

ETH, Ripple, HashGraph  are doing just that but stay in the past if you want

PoW has nothing to do with spam transactions. "PoW is stupid" is not a counter-argument.

Again that's not what i read but if you feel that revving the car engine without putting car in gear is not
a counter argument then I cannot help you. 

All meaningful BTC hardforks are relying on PoW so far.

Did you decide which ones are "meaningful" and why do you think the others have taken it out
and you also ignore my point about it not being needed in the first place.

Once again, no IOUs. No fake tokens. All very real, time based transactions.

Genuine BTC is in block-chain and changed to them would not help anything to scale so
something must be in these "real, time based transactions " but you don't seem to know
what so i will continue to assume IOU's or fakes   

Assuming blockchain sharding relies on coordinators, we have a weak point and needless complexity right there. I do assume though that there are more effective approaches than that.

Then the world must all be wrong, LN must be wrong using hubs and if your looking for "complexity" then look no further than mining 

LN is neither a rewrite nor a patch btw, it's simply an additional protocol layer. Much like OMNI and XCP before it. And like HTTP on top of TCP/IP before even that.

I don't mind new protocol to talk to the block chain but that's not what it is and you know it and your comments fly's in the
face of whats being said about the LN saving BTC in fess and dealing with micro-transactions   

I'm not sure what you mean by "the reply will be cached". If this still refers to LN, a channel state is maintained, but kept up to date by enforcing state updates by using presigned timelocked transactions.

Comments about caching was in relation to BTC block-chain nodes in groups, nothing at all to do with LN

If this still refers to LN, coins can still be traced back to their origin, even when using LN.

Fine the IOU or Clone or fake has a reference to a wallet in BTC but it's still not the original wallet in the
BC that is being transacted upon so this creates more problems than what it solves during settlement
and is a right budge up and you talk about avoiding "complexity"

You're welcome to fork then Or contribute to one of the alts that are eying blockchain sharding right now (assuming ETH is not the only one).

Yes lots of forks as others try to cash in on BTC but some are just doing forks to fix what is wrong and are
doing it in a rush. Me myself if i wanted to entice BTC members using air-drops would import the BC into
a completely redesign system and split the block-chain up into more manageable sized sections as has
been good code practice from year dot on any system that needs to scale.

Read up on sybil attacks on why this is a bad idea. Also the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to go trustless. Trying to create a trustee network comes with problems of its own. It's barely working with Root and Intermediary CAs. It becomes even less reliable with incentives to defect, such as the case with digital cash.

Yes we are back to decentralizes and trustless again in LN terms the decentralizes I am talking about is the same as being used
in LN Hubs (CENTRAL POINTS) so that a shoot to your other foot and throwing trust out the window as if it's a some type of religion
is not the answer.

Here we find that the medicine is worse than the disease as implemented in BTC and Ripple establishes trust with nodes as do
web-sites that allow you in and ban you if your start DDOSing them or not doing as you are told. Fantastic
tool trust is and is even used by network switches. Full nodes will need a registration ID and Coordinators will
deal with bad boys so again I say goodbye 51% attack bullshit

[QuestionAuthority]

I can’t wait to watch the great blockchain prize fight that’s going to happen between Ripple and Lightning networks.

Ripple uses blockchain technology, has its own token (XRP) and can be used to verify any type of transfer including existing banking transfers. Ripple has the support of big banking (like American Express, RBC, Westpac and The Bank of Tokyo) and can speed up existing transfer methods to keep current banking in power.

Lightning does not have its own blockchain technology but instead is a scripting language (special run-time environment that automates the execution of tasks), it requires the bitcoin blockchain (or some other blockchain) to survive but it does not use a blockchain for transactions. It only uses a blockchain for final proofing. Because of that is does not have its own token. It also does not have the support of current banking systems and has no large corporate sponsors with a vested interest in making it work. The major plus of lightning is if bitcoin fails or falters with the click of a keyboard it can use some other blockchain as its “enforcement” system. The downside is that major banking will likely never accept it a a payment system.

[maxxdxx]

People said the exact same thing about SegWit yet here we are. You won't see wide usage of SegWit or LN until 2021 at the absolute earliest. Forget crypto for tonight guys happy new year!

[Anti-Cen]

People said the exact same thing about SegWit yet here we are. You won't see wide usage of SegWit or LN until 2021 at the absolute earliest. Forget crypto for tonight guys happy new year!

Yes have a good one and bonk/drink the new year in as is the tradition

[gentlemand]

People shouting about alt migration need to look beyond the end of their noses. As users the people who are around right now don't count for anything. The ones that do count are the tens and hundreds of millions to come in the future. They're the ones who might have fully functioning and smoothed out lightning networks to waltz straight into.

In the meantime the people here who went all in on Rapecoin because it has lower fees will be deservedly lying groaning at the side of the highway of history.

Core can be penises. They also have proper vision that extends beyond the next alt pump. That's why they're still at the tip of the spear and that's why they're resisting the people offering instant cures that could fuck everything up in the near future.

[icanscript]

We are trying to predict the future of the bitcoin and the lightning network. But the reality will become clear within a month.
Congratulations on the new year 2018!

[Karakyli]

So far, the network of lightning - this is the most acceptable solution to the problem of eliminating bitcoins and generally a crisis of confidence in bitcoin. However, it's bad that this project does not come from the bitcoin development team. In addition, for mass implementation of lightning network, it is necessary to adapt wallets to it, and this takes time.

[Alns]

It really needs to get implemented right now, the fees are pretty high, they are not as high as they were before.. but they are still high compared to what they were a month ago.
When do you think that it is going to be on the main blockchain? It has been on development for more than months right now, and the dev's have changed a lot of times, how do we know if this is going to be a good change?
I dont know, but it was just a bitreffil payment and i do not trust in that at all.

We'll see soon.

[streetlight]

From what I have heard, there are tons of Lightning Network Nodes already. I think there are close to or possible over 1,000 now around thw world. I really hope it works out because fees need to go lower.

I just tried sending Bitcoin since fees are down, but they are still too high and I don't want to spend that much percentage just to send money. Hope they go down really soon when LN is more popular in 2018.

[muncuss]

Oh i see, LN isn't implemented yet in other wallet? I want to send 10k satoshi with 0 fee
Good news, of course

[DARKANGEL6415]

This is the innovation that i have been waiting for some time. This will reduce all that back log of transactions and the fee i seen on there of zero wont be long lasting i think. The reason i say that is because if we have 0 fees what will stop people from spamming transactions of letfs say 25 cents just because there is no transaction fees.

[fatalbert]

Humans:

I'm for mom and pop stores.


You leave, They go to Walmart and vote with their pocket book.

This is the past, present and future.

Ripple wins as currency, it's free to send.

When want to be anonymous you use 1 of the 100's of untraceable alt-coins.

This isn't very hard.

BTC is going to fail.

Hey, I'm for the movement, F- Gov's etc. But BTC isn't a currency...by its own choice. It's for high value transaction and store of value. Well, a better high value transaction coin will come along so there goes that. Store of value only option left. I bet if the 1st leaves, the 2nd will never be.

[CrazeCoinz]

is this the savior of bitcoin? well let's hope that this will be implemented soon in higher scale and solved the problem in transactions.

[wooch4aeye]

Sup guys!

I think this is a very important piece of info as we all kinda doomed bitcoin, but this might be a breakthrough.

The lightening network is a technology basically adds a layer of tech that can be a scaling solution for bitcoin, its supposed to prevent the high fees and slow transactions, with the same level of security.

A few days ago the first payment using the lightening network was successful, it was made to pay a phone bill.

The payment was INSTANT, and the fees were ZERO.

Here's the full article - https://www.coindesk.com/payment-provider-bitrefill-runs-successful-lightning-transaction-test/


Bottom line - the lightening network could solve most of the problems with bitcoin - if it does, its a huge step forward in terms of bitcoins scalability, meaning itll be easier to get mass adoption and use BTC for day-to-day transactions, and generally will be great news for the whole crypto section.

great news but Lightening Network  is long term solve and need long time to be full supported by the network.
we need fast solve for this problem

[Spendulus]

That's positive news, but still not enough to cheer the market back up. I don't want to sound negative but even when Lightening Network is fully implemented, it'll be too late for bitcoin to win all the investors who already moved to support new cryptos. New cryptos are implementing features that are missing from bitcoin such as anonymity and private transactions. Bitcoin is already outdated. I'm not saying that bitcoin will die. I'm sure bitcoin will stay forever however, it'll slow down gradually until another coin takes its place as the main crypto-currency.

This really is not true. Various features / options can be implemented in the basic code, such as what we call for convenience "Bitcoin Core." Or it's equivalent for alt coins.

But the presence or absence of those features has no relation to what features may be put on another layer. And that 2nd or even 3rd layer is required for exponential network growth.

For example, can you conceive of a layer on top of bitcoin in which fully anonymous transactions were possible? There'd be a point of exit from the blockchain and a point of entry back to it, and that's all the info that would be available.

What this means is that "features" in an alt coin does not imply it is "more advanced or superior" to bitcoin. Not in the least.

[Tenderino]

What I have to do to use this lightening network? Last time I wanted to send bitcoin it asked for $15 fees and I did not send it, because I typically send smaller amounts and how is it possible that I have to pay higher fees like some payment processors charge?

Hopefully this new network will solve the issues.

[SupportBitcoin]

That is amazing news! Indeed one of the downfalls of Bitcoin is the transaction fees and time. If it can truly become instant and with low to no fees, a HUGE step in the right direction. Then, I really don't see how Bitcoin doesn't overtake fiat in the future. The possiblities are endless at that point.

[Indrawan77]

This is the news that everyone is waiting for, bitcoin users already facing this problem for a long time and finally there is an solution, hopefully this can be implemented soon and people can start to used it, I believe this things could make bitcoin dominating againand make people want to use bitcoin for transaction