Can Lightning network work decentralized ?

[fhl182]

Some simple math.
Assume we have 30 mil bitcoin users.
Every user should open a LN channel and close LN channel.
Bitcoin can handle 300 000 transactions per day.
30 mil users should wait for 100 days so every one can open a channel, and 100 days to close a channel if there is no other transactions besides LN settlements in bitcoin network.
300 mil users should wait 1000 days, so every user can have openned LN channel.
Bitcoin can't even adopt Lightning Network without big blocks. LN official release will lead just to another huge fee spike, and since LN channels should be restarted regularly bitcoin network can be clogged by LN settlements.

[hv_]

I think that it will not be a centralized doom scenario like some people think.

Nods do not have to be very big. Most small buy coffee amounts don't need much of backup from supper nodes.

You still can choose to send using the main chain wich have by then lower fee as the load is gone

Right now we have massive mining farms and small home miners that work in harmony to a certain level

Instad of mining pools we should see super nodes that are funded by average john using some smart contracts

I think that development team have think about al this points.

It's gonna be economically, technically, ideally, name it why  -> most efficient to have ONE central hub :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pd6xHjLbhs&feature=youtu.be&t=1h17m00s

So it's not hard to figure out, where open markets will tend to!

AND it will be regulated as a payment processor in most countries.

-> Not my bitcoin.

[malikusama]

That's completely untrue. You are then dependent on the wealth of that "bank", how many channels it has open, and how much it owns on each channel. You are not done, and there is no guarantee that said "bank" will be any better than your 4 friends. Suppose that bank is just like friends, but with more channels that lead to dead ends and not the airline you want to pay. Now you're stuck. It's exactly the same as with your friends, and not any better nor any worse.

Well I rather depend on the wealth of a bank than on the wealth of my friends (and their friend's friends wealth) But yeah even then you're indeed not guaranteed of a good route and it's not even a guarantee I can pay my ticket. But isn't that an awful system then ? Of course I can always choose to bypass LN and just cough up the $55 (or way higher) transaction fee ... But still it just seems so far from perfect that I wonder if this thing is going to make it.

This is the worst thing i find in lightening network that the amount of transaction is limited on network and depends on channels(and group).
Even if the "bank" which is going to receive have enough funds but still we have to depend on the group which are connected to the pool of that bank with different channels.

I think Lightning network would be great for smaller payments/transactions but will be the worst for large scale transactions, we will need huge group with maximum channels for big transactions.

P.S : Correct me if i am wrong.

[achow101]

Some simple math.
Assume we have 30 mil bitcoin users.
Every user should open a LN channel and close LN channel.
Bitcoin can handle 300 000 transactions per day.
30 mil users should wait for 100 days so every one can open a channel, and 100 days to close a channel if there is no other transactions besides LN settlements in bitcoin network.
300 mil users should wait 1000 days, so every user can have openned LN channel.
Bitcoin can't even adopt Lightning Network without big blocks. LN official release will lead just to another huge fee spike, and since LN channels should be restarted regularly bitcoin network can be clogged by LN settlements.

It's extremely unlikely that every single user is going to attempt to open lightning channels simultaneously on the day that a fully released software for LN is available. It is extremely unlikely that every single user is going to attempt to close their lightning channels simultaneously. As with literally every other release of a new technology in Bitcoin, it's going to take months, probably years, before LN is actually widely used. Just look at how long it took for P2SH to become widely used. And how long it has taken for segwit. This situation you are describing is extremely unlikely to happen.

[zero3112]

Some simple math.
Assume we have 30 mil bitcoin users.
Every user should open a LN channel and close LN channel.
Bitcoin can handle 300 000 transactions per day.
30 mil users should wait for 100 days so every one can open a channel, and 100 days to close a channel if there is no other transactions besides LN settlements in bitcoin network.
300 mil users should wait 1000 days, so every user can have openned LN channel.
Bitcoin can't even adopt Lightning Network without big blocks. LN official release will lead just to another huge fee spike, and since LN channels should be restarted regularly bitcoin network can be clogged by LN settlements.

It's extremely unlikely that every single user is going to attempt to open lightning channels simultaneously on the day that a fully released software for LN is available. It is extremely unlikely that every single user is going to attempt to close their lightning channels simultaneously. As with literally every other release of a new technology in Bitcoin, it's going to take months, probably years, before LN is actually widely used. Just look at how long it took for P2SH to become widely used. And how long it has taken for segwit. This situation you are describing is extremely unlikely to happen.

So is there any limit to how many transactions LN can handle. It seems like opening and closing channels would count as two transactions and theirs a limit for how much data that can fit in a bitcoin block. I am just trying to wrap my head around the LN it's confusing to me.

[Colorblind]

I really don't see how LN is supposed to work decentralized. In this scenario there would be a huge chain of people where everybody lends his money to the next guy in the chain, up the guy at the end of the chain who wants to pay for something. The maximum payment amount in this scenario is determined by the guy who has the least amount of money freely available in that chain. This effectively would mean that it can only work decentralized for very small payments. Even payments bigger than a few dollar could already be problematic.

Whereas in a centralized scenario, it could perfectly work, but it would effectively turn into a regular banking relationship as people have now, just with a different name (account at your bank vs payment channel with your bank). Or am I missing something here?

I both agree and disagree with your conclusions.

Yes, the system designed to work as a mesh but it will in fact look more like a star with exchanges/payment processors/large fund holders in the middle. And it looks a lot like centralization. However we should not forget that payment hubs won't ever have any control over your funds (i.e. they won't be able to hold your transaction hostage, impose KYC, manage fees). It's trustless middleman, that is important for the process, rewarded in proportion for it's importance, yet does not own or control the process in any significant way.

[Colorblind]

Some simple math.
Assume we have 30 mil bitcoin users.
Every user should open a LN channel and close LN channel.
Bitcoin can handle 300 000 transactions per day.
30 mil users should wait for 100 days so every one can open a channel, and 100 days to close a channel if there is no other transactions besides LN settlements in bitcoin network.
300 mil users should wait 1000 days, so every user can have openned LN channel.
Bitcoin can't even adopt Lightning Network without big blocks. LN official release will lead just to another huge fee spike, and since LN channels should be restarted regularly bitcoin network can be clogged by LN settlements.

It's extremely unlikely that every single user is going to attempt to open lightning channels simultaneously on the day that a fully released software for LN is available. It is extremely unlikely that every single user is going to attempt to close their lightning channels simultaneously. As with literally every other release of a new technology in Bitcoin, it's going to take months, probably years, before LN is actually widely used. Just look at how long it took for P2SH to become widely used. And how long it has taken for segwit. This situation you are describing is extremely unlikely to happen.

So is there any limit to how many transactions LN can handle. It seems like opening and closing channels would count as two transactions and theirs a limit for how much data that can fit in a bitcoin block. I am just trying to wrap my head around the LN it's confusing to me.

It seems you don't fully understand what LN is. Simplified:

1. You post funding transaction on block chain (that locks up your money for the channel lifetime)
2. During channel lifetime (it can be a day, a month or even a year) you are free to exchange off-chain transactions with other LN users. Those TX are same BTC TX messages, however they never got posted to blockchain unless dispute occurs (in case of dispute, person who initiates premature channel closure gets punished) or channel naturally expires.
3. After channel closes - second - settlement transaction being posted to blockchain.

So basically for casual users, with need to move smaller amounts more often it will be virtually unlimited transactions in between those 2 on-chain transactions because transactions are fairly small, and they don't need to be confirmed on blockchain you can send hundreds of thousands/s. In theory on-chain transaction will become much more scarce and used only to move huge amounts or fund payment channels.

[Spendulus]

Some simple math.
Assume we have 30 mil bitcoin users.
Every user should open a LN channel and close LN channel.
Bitcoin can handle 300 000 transactions per day.
30 mil users should wait for 100 days so every one can open a channel, and 100 days to close a channel if there is no other transactions besides LN settlements in bitcoin network.
300 mil users should wait 1000 days, so every user can have openned LN channel.
Bitcoin can't even adopt Lightning Network without big blocks. LN official release will lead just to another huge fee spike, and since LN channels should be restarted regularly bitcoin network can be clogged by LN settlements.

It's extremely unlikely that every single user is going to attempt to open lightning channels simultaneously on the day that a fully released software for LN is available. It is extremely unlikely that every single user is going to attempt to close their lightning channels simultaneously. As with literally every other release of a new technology in Bitcoin, it's going to take months, probably years, before LN is actually widely used. Just look at how long it took for P2SH to become widely used. And how long it has taken for segwit. This situation you are describing is extremely unlikely to happen.

One seemingly inescapable effect of the LN is an increased demand for bitcoin. This is because the LN network is essentially a huge distributed  "HODLer."

If there are 16 million bitcoins and over six months LN absorbs 2 million, more price and fee increases, hello.

[sjefdeklerk]

1. You post funding transaction on block chain (that locks up your money for the channel lifetime)
2. During channel lifetime (it can be a day, a month or even a year) you are free to exchange off-chain transactions with other LN users. Those TX are same BTC TX messages, however they never got posted to blockchain unless dispute occurs (in case of dispute, person who initiates premature channel closure gets punished) or channel naturally expires.
3. After channel closes - second - settlement transaction being posted to blockchain.

I think it's important to note that once the money is depleted in your channel, you will need to refund, which is another on-chain transaction (including the really steep on-chain fees). Every transaction into and out of the payment channel = on chain = huge fees.

One seemingly inescapable effect of the LN is an increased demand for bitcoin. This is because the LN network is essentially a huge distributed  "HODLer."

If there are 16 million bitcoins and over six months LN absorbs 2 million, more price and fee increases, hello.

Exactly. Even with LN, the current 7 transactions/sec world wide is a joke, not even close enough to make this a viable solution. It's doomed to fail, unless they improve the onchain throughput rate. But if they do that, why do they need LN in the first place ?

[Colorblind]

1. You post funding transaction on block chain (that locks up your money for the channel lifetime)
2. During channel lifetime (it can be a day, a month or even a year) you are free to exchange off-chain transactions with other LN users. Those TX are same BTC TX messages, however they never got posted to blockchain unless dispute occurs (in case of dispute, person who initiates premature channel closure gets punished) or channel naturally expires.
3. After channel closes - second - settlement transaction being posted to blockchain.

I think it's important to note that once the money is depleted in your channel, you will need to refund, which is another on-chain transaction (including the really steep on-chain fees). Every transaction into and out of the payment channel = on chain = huge fees.

One seemingly inescapable effect of the LN is an increased demand for bitcoin. This is because the LN network is essentially a huge distributed  "HODLer."

If there are 16 million bitcoins and over six months LN absorbs 2 million, more price and fee increases, hello.

Exactly. Even with LN, the current 7 transactions/sec world wide is a joke, not even close enough to make this a viable solution. It's doomed to fail, unless they improve the onchain throughput rate. But if they do that, why do they need LN in the first place ?

I kinda agree - much larger blocks will require but not at the stage where LN tested and adopted by at least some significant portion of the community. Even on current network I have a feeling it will ease load on the network. As previous poster noted demand for BTC will rise, dragging all costs in BTC upward, but this process will be relatively slow, hopefully slow enough to upgrade block size.


Regarding refunding channel problem - there are solutions. Since you can receive funds via LN you can simply pay fiat to LN exchange to provide funds via LN and re-fund your channel, effectively buying transactionless BTC. I think for professional traders, holding LN channels opened to several exchanges will open great arbitrage opportunities.
But you not wrong - if you store BTC in cold wallet - your refill tx have to be on chain and probably will be pretty expensive.

[pebwindkraft]

Exactly. Even with LN, the current 7 transactions/sec world wide is a joke, not even close enough to make this a viable solution. It's doomed to fail, unless they improve the onchain throughput rate. But if they do that, why do they need LN in the first place ?

calling this a joke as a newbie here in the forum will not gain you friends. Too many newbies have come here and repeated the "flaws" of Bitcoin design.
Looking at your posts seem to show a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin AND LN can work in the future together. You are looking with limitation glasses (the fees), instead of the options glasses. Your calcs are based on wrong assumptions (well, very limited assumptions to make it appear worse). It might even be that you do it with intention: to show that big blocks are better/faster/lower fees ... this is lame, and there is other forum pages. Especially as there isn't in any visible real value in these big block coins (yet). So be happy in your big block coins, and hope for the future. Those, who know better, stay with bitcoin, segwit, LN and more to come.

Maybe you might want to re-phrase into open questions, so the community can discuss/answer properly, and it helps the community to get along. Without separating between one or the other.
If you continue this way, your comments cannot be taken seriously, and as such don't provide any value.

[sjefdeklerk]

Exactly. Even with LN, the current 7 transactions/sec world wide is a joke, not even close enough to make this a viable solution. It's doomed to fail, unless they improve the onchain throughput rate. But if they do that, why do they need LN in the first place ?

calling this a joke as a newbie here in the forum will not gain you friends. Too many newbies have come here and repeated the "flaws" of Bitcoin design.
Looking at your posts seem to show a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin AND LN can work in the future together. You are looking with limitation glasses (the fees), instead of the options glasses. Your calcs are based on wrong assumptions (well, very limited assumptions to make it appear worse). It might even be that you do it with intention: to show that big blocks are better/faster/lower fees ... this is lame, and there is other forum pages. Especially as there isn't in any visible real value in these big block coins (yet). So be happy in your big block coins, and hope for the future. Those, who know better, stay with bitcoin, segwit, LN and more to come.

Maybe you might want to re-phrase into open questions, so the community can discuss/answer properly, and it helps the community to get along. Without separating between one or the other.
If you continue this way, your comments cannot be taken seriously, and as such don't provide any value.

It's ok to have criticism at anyone's post but at least tell me what's wrong with my 'assumptions' so that we can discuss it. Your post is rather useless as it is now, you're only saying that I'm wrong and need to rephrase things. It makes for a better discussion if you mention what you think is wrong. Thanks.

[Colorblind]

Exactly. Even with LN, the current 7 transactions/sec world wide is a joke, not even close enough to make this a viable solution. It's doomed to fail, unless they improve the onchain throughput rate. But if they do that, why do they need LN in the first place ?

calling this a joke as a newbie here in the forum will not gain you friends. Too many newbies have come here and repeated the "flaws" of Bitcoin design.
Looking at your posts seem to show a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin AND LN can work in the future together. You are looking with limitation glasses (the fees), instead of the options glasses. Your calcs are based on wrong assumptions (well, very limited assumptions to make it appear worse). It might even be that you do it with intention: to show that big blocks are better/faster/lower fees ... this is lame, and there is other forum pages. Especially as there isn't in any visible real value in these big block coins (yet). So be happy in your big block coins, and hope for the future. Those, who know better, stay with bitcoin, segwit, LN and more to come.

Maybe you might want to re-phrase into open questions, so the community can discuss/answer properly, and it helps the community to get along. Without separating between one or the other.
If you continue this way, your comments cannot be taken seriously, and as such don't provide any value.

It's ok to have criticism at anyone's post but at least tell me what's wrong with my 'assumptions' so that we can discuss it. Your post is rather useless as it is now, you're only saying that I'm wrong and need to rephrase things. It makes for a better discussion if you mention what you think is wrong. Thanks.

Neither of you is right.

On the subject - we simply don't know what will happen when and if LN launch. Theorizing in regards of an impact is speculation at best. But evidently supporters of LN takes phrases like "joke" or "doomed to fail" as tiny bit offensive. You provided valid argument but spiced it probably too much.

On the other hand, referring to the account status is kinda lame argument. I don't know what reasons people have to crate new account and I accept the fact it's not my business. I prefer to think that Established account probably know things, but newbie account may or may not have knowledge. We should not deny people privacy by simply discarding posts from fresh acc. (My acc for example is not my main)

[pebwindkraft]

On the other hand, referring to the account status is kinda lame argument. I don't know what reasons people have to crate new account and I accept the fact it's not my business. I prefer to think that Established account probably know things, but newbie account may or may not have knowledge. We should not deny people privacy by simply discarding posts from fresh acc. (My acc for example is not my main)

that's kind of an elegant way to express acceptance, that (n)etiquette can be ignored. Maybe no, or not in my humble opinion.... I'd rather see newbies to introduce, observe, understand (! - and show, that an effort was made to understand!), then comment (open questions), discuss, and then (if progress in knowledge is proven) allow to critisize. And of course don't insist others have to prove, how far they are wrong.
I think I am looking more at reputation not privacy.

On the technology: bitcoins must not be the only ramp on/off to the lightning network. Once I have coins in lightning, there is no reason to close the channel after every transaction. Au contraire, I could develop new business models around "my" coins in the channel. Last recently I discussed the value of having coins in the channel, while someone else needs to quickly send funds, but current congestion and fees prevent him to do so... And looking at the fees that large exchanges pay as per today, I guess they would be the first candidates to think about lightning channels (or cost reduction). Also bitcoin faucets, marketing hubs and regular payment services come to mind. I consider this to be the mesh network, which is clearly decentralized. Only commies would want to have lightning centralized:-)
Whereas I can't predict the future, I would think that reducing tx costs is a driver for moving to technology, in this case to Lightning.

[sjefdeklerk]

that's kind of an elegant way to express acceptance, that (n)etiquette can be ignored. Maybe no, or not in my humble opinion.... I'd rather see newbies to introduce, observe, understand (! - and show, that an effort was made to understand!), then comment (open questions), discuss, and then (if progress in knowledge is proven) allow to critisize. And of course don't insist others have to prove, how far they are wrong.
I think I am looking more at reputation not privacy.

On the technology: bitcoins must not be the only ramp on/off to the lightning network. Once I have coins in lightning, there is no reason to close the channel after every transaction. Au contraire, I could develop new business models around "my" coins in the channel. Last recently I discussed the value of having coins in the channel, while someone else needs to quickly send funds, but current congestion and fees prevent him to do so... And looking at the fees that large exchanges pay as per today, I guess they would be the first candidates to think about lightning channels (or cost reduction). Also bitcoin faucets, marketing hubs and regular payment services come to mind. I consider this to be the mesh network, which is clearly decentralized. Only commies would want to have lightning centralized:-)
Whereas I can't predict the future, I would think that reducing tx costs is a driver for moving to technology, in this case to Lightning.

I called it a joke because 7 transactions world wide per second is not even NEARLY enough, even with LN. Heck it's not even enough for a small country. It's a joke because people have to be online 24/7 to be part of a payment route: if one user is offline, he breaks a certain route. It's a joke because the maximum amount you can send is determined by the guy who has the least money in his channel. It's a joke since it will only work centralized and that's going against everything that bitcoin was meant to be (or do you really envision a chain of 30 people processing a $2000 payment, meaning everybody has to have $2000 freely available). It's a joke because you have ZERO guarantee you can pay the person you would like to pay, even if both have open channels and you're a billionaire. It's a joke since the WHOLE network has to be aware of the exact state of EVERYBODY's channels ALL OF THE TIME, otherwise routes can't be discovered. Imagine the amount of data if you want to do that decentralized! And it's a joke because fraud is possible between 2 users, you continually have to check if people aren't screwing you over.

[Spendulus]

that's kind of an elegant way to express acceptance, that (n)etiquette can be ignored. Maybe no, or not in my humble opinion.... I'd rather see newbies to introduce, observe, understand (! - and show, that an effort was made to understand!), then comment (open questions), discuss, and then (if progress in knowledge is proven) allow to critisize. And of course don't insist others have to prove, how far they are wrong.
I think I am looking more at reputation not privacy.

On the technology: bitcoins must not be the only ramp on/off to the lightning network. Once I have coins in lightning, there is no reason to close the channel after every transaction. Au contraire, I could develop new business models around "my" coins in the channel. Last recently I discussed the value of having coins in the channel, while someone else needs to quickly send funds, but current congestion and fees prevent him to do so... And looking at the fees that large exchanges pay as per today, I guess they would be the first candidates to think about lightning channels (or cost reduction). Also bitcoin faucets, marketing hubs and regular payment services come to mind. I consider this to be the mesh network, which is clearly decentralized. Only commies would want to have lightning centralized:-)
Whereas I can't predict the future, I would think that reducing tx costs is a driver for moving to technology, in this case to Lightning.

I called it a joke because 7 transactions world wide per second is not even NEARLY enough, even with LN. Heck it's not even enough for a small country. It's a joke because people have to be online 24/7 to be part of a payment route: if one user is offline, he breaks a certain route. It's a joke because the maximum amount you can send is determined by the guy who has the least money in his channel. It's a joke since it will only work centralized and that's going against everything that bitcoin was meant to be (or do you really envision a chain of 30 people processing a $2000 payment, meaning everybody has to have $2000 freely available). It's a joke because you have ZERO guarantee you can pay the person you would like to pay, even if both have open channels and you're a billionaire. It's a joke since the WHOLE network has to be aware of the exact state of EVERYBODY's channels ALL OF THE TIME, otherwise routes can't be discovered. Imagine the amount of data if you want to do that decentralized! And it's a joke because fraud is possible between 2 users, you continually have to check if people aren't screwing you over.

Interesting these assertions.

First item. No, bitcoin is not a joke at 7x/sec. Why? Because really, it's about 3/sec and with that lame number, bitcoin is about the 20th largest currency (check M1 numbers) in the world.

Well, maybe that is a joke. It's actually rather funny, isn't it? Or maybe the OTHER FIAT currencies are the joke. What do you think? Must be something going on right there.

Next, you have some issues with the proposed LN network, and I have an answer for that, which is also pretty funny. Get an android phone, download the beta LN interface, start doing some testing and prove up good and bad in the design. You can do this with the testnet.

Other people will be doing this, and it's certainly needed to get the bugs out.

[Colorblind]

that's kind of an elegant way to express acceptance, that (n)etiquette can be ignored. Maybe no, or not in my humble opinion.... I'd rather see newbies to introduce, observe, understand (! - and show, that an effort was made to understand!), then comment (open questions), discuss, and then (if progress in knowledge is proven) allow to critisize. And of course don't insist others have to prove, how far they are wrong.
I think I am looking more at reputation not privacy.

On the technology: bitcoins must not be the only ramp on/off to the lightning network. Once I have coins in lightning, there is no reason to close the channel after every transaction. Au contraire, I could develop new business models around "my" coins in the channel. Last recently I discussed the value of having coins in the channel, while someone else needs to quickly send funds, but current congestion and fees prevent him to do so... And looking at the fees that large exchanges pay as per today, I guess they would be the first candidates to think about lightning channels (or cost reduction). Also bitcoin faucets, marketing hubs and regular payment services come to mind. I consider this to be the mesh network, which is clearly decentralized. Only commies would want to have lightning centralized:-)
Whereas I can't predict the future, I would think that reducing tx costs is a driver for moving to technology, in this case to Lightning.

I called it a joke because 7 transactions world wide per second is not even NEARLY enough, even with LN. Heck it's not even enough for a small country. It's a joke because people have to be online 24/7 to be part of a payment route: if one user is offline, he breaks a certain route. It's a joke because the maximum amount you can send is determined by the guy who has the least money in his channel. It's a joke since it will only work centralized and that's going against everything that bitcoin was meant to be (or do you really envision a chain of 30 people processing a $2000 payment, meaning everybody has to have $2000 freely available). It's a joke because you have ZERO guarantee you can pay the person you would like to pay, even if both have open channels and you're a billionaire. It's a joke since the WHOLE network has to be aware of the exact state of EVERYBODY's channels ALL OF THE TIME, otherwise routes can't be discovered. Imagine the amount of data if you want to do that decentralized! And it's a joke because fraud is possible between 2 users, you continually have to check if people aren't screwing you over.

Mind if I pick apart your above statement?

I called it a joke because 7 transactions world wide per second is not even NEARLY enough, even with LN.

As of now, BTC worth billions and billions. With 7 tx/sec, insane fees and all. LN is likely to reduce load on the network, so in any case it will do good.

It's a joke because people have to be online 24/7 to be part of a payment route: if one user is offline, he breaks a certain route.

So what? LN is a mesh - if you connect to the node that have good up time (read - hub) or have multiple connections you don't need to worry. It's pretty obvious that you need to be online to participate in routing, but you don't have to if you don't want to, really.

It's a joke because the maximum amount you can send is determined by the guy who has the least money in his channel.

First of all since transactions are instant, you can break down your tx to 10 smaller tx (this can work completely under the hood, unnoticed by users). Also with proper routing this won't be a problem. Also, remember - LN is not designed to send millions - for this you will still have your conventional on-chain transactions.

It's a joke since it will only work centralized and that's going against everything that bitcoin was meant to be (or do you really envision a chain of 30 people processing a $2000 payment, meaning everybody has to have $2000 freely available).

It really changes when you trying to think what word "Centralization" really means, and what scares you in it. Bitcoin was made to fight control imposed by banking, not single point of interaction. If central hubs are trustless, incentivised and have no real control over my funds, I'd say it's not that same centralization Bitcoin was born to fight with. After all you may say Mining pools are "centralizing" bitcoin, when they don't, because even though they can have big share, they don't have real control.

Also you can break 2000$ tx to 2000 1$ tx and happily send them via LN if there are no alternatives.

It's a joke because you have ZERO guarantee you can pay the person you would like to pay, even if both have open channels and you're a billionaire.

What?

It's a joke since the WHOLE network has to be aware of the exact state of EVERYBODY's channels ALL OF THE TIME, otherwise routes can't be discovered.

No. There a ways of routing on the "fly". Most efficient would be to use shared map, but blind routing is possible. How do you think TOR work?

And it's a joke because fraud is possible between 2 users, you continually have to check if people aren't screwing you over.

That's probably most valid point of them all. But isn't it what block-chain was made in the first place - so you can check if you wasn't screwed? If you operate lightning node your constant checks will be integrated in your block chain synchronization algo (i.e. every time new block is added - it checks if you have been screwed). If you don't want to host a full node - that's fine, but in absence of block chain you lose advantage of decentralized ledger anyway.


So I think - no, LN is not a joke. Not at all.

[sjefdeklerk]

First item. No, bitcoin is not a joke at 7x/sec. Why? Because really, it's about 3/sec and with that lame number, bitcoin is about the 20th largest currency (check M1 numbers) in the world.

You do realize you want me to compare a max number of transactions per second with a money supply (M1) ?

Well, maybe that is a joke. It's actually rather funny, isn't it? Or maybe the OTHER FIAT currencies are the joke. What do you think? Must be something going on right there.

Nah, at least with most fiat I know what I can pay for the next year and I can actually pay somebody when I want and with less costs.

[sjefdeklerk]

Also, remember - LN is not designed to send millions - for this you will still have your conventional on-chain transactions.

Who is talking about millions ? I'm talking about monthly payments, energy bills, rent, things like that already are impossible in a decentralized version of LN. And sure, I can go onchain but look at the extreme costs, even with only VERY few people using it, it got at $60. Now imagine the whole world using BTC to pay for their monthly bills, transaction costs would run thousands of dollars per transaction !

It really changes when you trying to think what word "Centralization" really means, and what scares you in it. Bitcoin was made to fight control imposed by banking, not single point of interaction. If central hubs are trustless, incentivised and have no real control over my funds, I'd say it's not that same centralization Bitcoin was born to fight with. After all you may say Mining pools are "centralizing" bitcoin, when they don't, because even though they can have big share, they don't have real control.

It's just funny, bitcoin was supposed to be an alternate system and now it's really inevitable that it's going to be a banking system in the end.

It's a joke because you have ZERO guarantee you can pay the person you would like to pay, even if both have open channels and you're a billionaire.

What?

There has to be an actual route from person A to person B, consisting of people who are A) online, B) connected between you and the person you want to pay and C) EVERYBODY in that route has to have at least the amount that you want to pay, freely available. That's just not a very realistic situation. Only option then is going on chain but then you'll pay hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars, if bitcoin is ever to become big. Pretty much nobody is using it at the moment (compared to fiat) and costs already went over $60. That can easily go 10x, maybe 100x.

No. There a ways of routing on the "fly". Most efficient would be to use shared map, but blind routing is possible. How do you think TOR work?

Eh? How is that even supposed to work, 'on the fly' ? The network needs to know which user in a route can pay how much, otherwise the transaction can't go through.

[Colorblind]

Also, remember - LN is not designed to send millions - for this you will still have your conventional on-chain transactions.

Who is talking about millions ? I'm talking about monthly payments, energy bills, rent, things like that already are impossible in a decentralized version of LN. And sure, I can go onchain but look at the extreme costs, even with only VERY few people using it, it got at $60. Now imagine the whole world using BTC to pay for their monthly bills, transaction costs would run thousands of dollars per transaction !

It really changes when you trying to think what word "Centralization" really means, and what scares you in it. Bitcoin was made to fight control imposed by banking, not single point of interaction. If central hubs are trustless, incentivised and have no real control over my funds, I'd say it's not that same centralization Bitcoin was born to fight with. After all you may say Mining pools are "centralizing" bitcoin, when they don't, because even though they can have big share, they don't have real control.

It's just funny, bitcoin was supposed to be an alternate system and now it's really inevitable that it's going to be a banking system in the end.

It's a joke because you have ZERO guarantee you can pay the person you would like to pay, even if both have open channels and you're a billionaire.

What?

There has to be an actual route from person A to person B, consisting of people who are A) online, B) connected between you and the person you want to pay and C) EVERYBODY in that route has to have at least the amount that you want to pay, freely available. That's just not a very realistic situation. Only option then is going on chain but then you'll pay hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars, if bitcoin is ever to become big. Pretty much nobody is using it at the moment (compared to fiat) and costs already went over $60. That can easily go 10x, maybe 100x.

No. There a ways of routing on the "fly". Most efficient would be to use shared map, but blind routing is possible. How do you think TOR work?

Eh? How is that even supposed to work, 'on the fly' ? The network needs to know which user in a route can pay how much, otherwise the transaction can't go through.

Who is talking about millions ? I'm talking about monthly payments, energy bills, rent, things like that already are impossible in a decentralized version of LN. And sure, I can go onchain but look at the extreme costs, even with only VERY few people using it, it got at $60. Now imagine the whole world using BTC to pay for their monthly bills, transaction costs would run thousands of dollars per transaction !

So? That is the great use case for LN that whole world can use without loading blockchain. Problem solved. 7 tx/sec won't be enough, but if LN flies - it won't be a big deal to increase block size.

It's just funny, bitcoin was supposed to be an alternate system and now it's really inevitable that it's going to be a banking system in the end.

In worst case it will be both. In best case it will be what it is now but better. LN is optional that is what important. Like conventional TX? Go ahead!

It's a joke because you have ZERO guarantee you can pay the person you would like to pay, even if both have open channels and you're a billionaire.

What?

There has to be an actual route from person A to person B, consisting of people who are A) online, B) connected between you and the person you want to pay and C) EVERYBODY in that route has to have at least the amount that you want to pay, freely available. That's just not a very realistic situation. Only option then is going on chain but then you'll pay hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars, if bitcoin is ever to become big. Pretty much nobody is using it at the moment (compared to fiat) and costs already went over $60. That can easily go 10x, maybe 100x.

I think I already covered all the points, like transaction splitting etc.

Eh? How is that even supposed to work, 'on the fly' ? The network needs to know which user in a route can pay how much, otherwise the transaction can't go through.

Note that I'm theorizing here. From the top of my head each full node can have snapshot/map of nearest channels. If full map consists of N overlapping pieces those maps this will be maximum number of hops needed to reach destination. Also if you think about it how much nodes there will be really? Will this map be that large?