Can Lightning network work decentralized ?

[sjefdeklerk]

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.

Ok and now you want to pay your rent, your utility bills, your dentist, you car insurance etc etc etc. How do you do that with LN in a decentralized situation ? Or do you really think there are routes with for example 15 people and each can cough up your $1500 rent ?

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?

And how old are these 'snapshots'? If somebody just made a payment that 'snapshot' is worthless. No, this only works when there's a complete map of the network where the network is continually aware of the balance in EVERYBODY's payment channel. Which seems like an extreme data traffic situation.

[amishmanish]

To the OP. You made a newbie account the day coinbase sneaked in BCH. Since then, you have been relentlessly spreading FUD about bitcoin and shrewdly shilling Bcash.
You don't sound like one of the trolls so my closest guess is that you must be one of the earliest faithfuls who were unceremoniously purged from r/bitcoin as well as the forum. That was some major upheaval back in the days of Bitcoin XT i think. A lot of people got hurt and angry because of the policies adopted by Theymos. That name has a sort of Greek mythology ring to it now.
Some of the people who really believed in this thing turned against it. Bitcoin and Bcash are almost like two long feuding brothers. Reconciliation seems pretty far off right now.
Big blocks aren't the only solution if bitcoin has to scale and I guess you people failed to agree on whether to increase first or get SegWit/LN first.There's so much drama in that story.

Back in the days, none of you would have wanted LN or Bitcoin to fail. In the words of King Theoden "Days have gone down in the West". Heck, Lets hear the full lament:

Where now the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? 
Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing?
Where is the hand on the harpstring, and the red fire glowing?
Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing?
They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow;
The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. 
Who shall gather the smoke of the dead wood burning,
Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?

Well, that up there was a masterpiece and I hope, AT LEAST ON THAT, we can all agree..

[cellard]

My current concern is that if a big merchant like Amazon starts accepting LN payments, the smaller websites are going to have even more troubles trying to get some traffic away from Amazon and convert some sales.

Why? well because if you have to pay an on-chain fee to put money in a channel (im not sure yet if you must pay when oppening, when sending money into the channel and also when clossing, that's 3 different payments that I still don't understand exactly what's happening here) people aren't going to bother opening channels to buy with smaller websites that maybe you only buy once or twice at best, they will all stick to the same Amazon channel because in Amazon you find anything, but sometimes like I said you may test out another website because there's a bit of a price difference no your benefit, maybe an item is in stock there but not in Amazon... etc. People will not bother opening, funding and closing channels if they have to pay on-chain fees and will stick with a couple channels only, effectively centralizing commerce (even more, cause as we know shops are having a hard time competing against the Amazon mammoth)

Please anyone that actually knows how this exactly works like achow101 or nullius I would like some explanation on this practical case. I just don't see how people are going to bother if they can just pay with fiat saving the on-chain fees.

[jsfour]

FWIW I think this is a good honest discussion with a well thought out criticism.

I can see a world where LN becomes a centralized system. Eg I walk into a “bank” and they help me setup a private key then when I deposit FIAT they open up a channel on Ln with my bitcoin account and fund it.

Alternatively my bank could just issue me credit by funding my LN channel -this is basically what Visa does.

At that point I’m on LN/bitcoin but would have gone through a KYC check. I probably wouldn’t need to open many other channels because the bank would have thousands open with other banks and thus millions of users.

I think we need to remember that users will tend towards the easiest path. And something like the above will probably be it.

We could all use cash daily but most of the time we don’t. One of the main reasons banks exist is to make it easier to send/receive payments through things like cards/checks/wires/ach.

Why should we expect LN to be any different then what’s already happened.

[Yallzbetrippen]

I had this idea today regarding the mempool and was wondering why there is only one?
How come it cannot be sectioned of into pools where transactions such as mining distributions with many recipients and high fees(which is always the preferred ones by miners) go into one pool and lower ones into another?
If one can do segwit then surely something like that should technically be possible? Maybe this has been brought up before but obviously most things are drowned out in forums as big as this one.

[amishmanish]

FWIW I think this is a good honest discussion with a well thought out criticism.

I can see a world where LN becomes a centralized system. Eg I walk into a “bank” and they help me setup a private key then when I deposit FIAT they open up a channel on Ln with my bitcoin account and fund it.

Alternatively my bank could just issue me credit by funding my LN channel -this is basically what Visa does.

At that point I’m on LN/bitcoin but would have gone through a KYC check. I probably wouldn’t need to open many other channels because the bank would have thousands open with other banks and thus millions of users.

I think we need to remember that users will tend towards the easiest path. And something like the above will probably be it.

We could all use cash daily but most of the time we don’t. One of the main reasons banks exist is to make it easier to send/receive payments through things like cards/checks/wires/ach.

Why should we expect LN to be any different then what’s already happened.

Difference no. 1: LN is a scaling solution for bitcoin. Not for fiat. You are still only transferring 'bitcoins' over which your payment node, the bank, has no control like they have over fiat money.
Difference no. 2: Suddenly if the bank decides to shutdown or goes bankrupt, it won't forefeit your funds as a normal bank can. This changes the whole paradigm of banking as it makes these bitcoin-banks behave much more responsibly to keep their business. They cannot hold your bitcoin ransom like fiat.

Aren't these big enough reasons to support LN?
Moreover, If you see it positively then we can have a future where responsible bitcoiners with enough funds will act as nodes just like they act as escrows now anyways. Its just that they'll be much more trustless than even escrows.

Smaller nodes for smaller, low-fee microtransactions and bigger, wealthier nodes for higher transactions.

[jsfour]

FWIW I think this is a good honest discussion with a well thought out criticism.

I can see a world where LN becomes a centralized system. Eg I walk into a “bank” and they help me setup a private key then when I deposit FIAT they open up a channel on Ln with my bitcoin account and fund it.

Alternatively my bank could just issue me credit by funding my LN channel -this is basically what Visa does.

At that point I’m on LN/bitcoin but would have gone through a KYC check. I probably wouldn’t need to open many other channels because the bank would have thousands open with other banks and thus millions of users.

I think we need to remember that users will tend towards the easiest path. And something like the above will probably be it.

We could all use cash daily but most of the time we don’t. One of the main reasons banks exist is to make it easier to send/receive payments through things like cards/checks/wires/ach.

Why should we expect LN to be any different then what’s already happened.

Difference no. 1: LN is a scaling solution for bitcoin. Not for fiat. You are still only transferring 'bitcoins' over which your payment node, the bank, has no control like they have over fiat money.
Difference no. 2: Suddenly if the bank decides to shutdown or goes bankrupt, it won't forefeit your funds as a normal bank can. This changes the whole paradigm of banking as it makes these bitcoin-banks behave much more responsibly to keep their business. They cannot hold your bitcoin ransom like fiat.

Aren't these big enough reasons to support LN?
Moreover, If you see it positively then we can have a future where responsible bitcoiners with enough funds will act as nodes just like they act as escrows now anyways. Its just that they'll be much more trustless than even escrows.

Smaller nodes for smaller, low-fee microtransactions and bigger, wealthier nodes for higher transactions.

Yes I know LN scales bitcoin, but for the user, the currency ultimately doesn’t matter. If I buy bitcoin from Coinbase and they send the bitcoin to my payment channel that looks very similar to a checking account to the layperson. They won’t really understand the perceived nuance you are talking about -though it’s fundamentally what makes the blockchain valueable.

In the example I outlined the banks would have control since they could just close my channel allowing the balances to settle. If they are the super nodes (which I think they will be) and they won’t allow me to open a channel the network will be very hard to use day to day since I would be severely constrained by the size of channels I have open with others.

Ie. I wouldn’t really want/need to open a large channel with the random coffee shop that I visit 3 times a month.

Let’s take another example. Say I have a roommate that pays me .1 btc/mo for rent we would need to open a 3month channel (.3 btc) to make it worth it because that would mean we could bundle 3 transactions into 2 blockchain transactions.

It’s going to be hard for most people to fork over that level of cash. Especially if you need to open multiple channels like that -ie do I really have the btc to open a 3 month payment with my landlord? Probably not because I have a roommate to begin with.

Think about a business that employs 100 people. The business would need to have a lot of cash on hand to open up direct channels. So they will probably just open up one mega chan with their bank. The “bank”surely will require KYC to do this.

I’m a strong proponent of a decentralized store of value but my point is that ultimately the user won’t care if it’s btc+ln/ach/wire/visa/mpesa. They qjust need to be able to store value and send it to someone and will take the easiest path which I think will be centralization.

It’s not like the tech requires this, it’s more of a human nature thing.

[sjefdeklerk]

Let’s take another example. Say I have a roommate that pays me .1 btc/mo for rent we would need to open a 3month channel (.3 btc) to make it worth it because that would mean we could bundle 3 transactions into 2 blockchain transactions.

It’s going to be hard for most people to fork over that level of cash. Especially if you need to open multiple channels like that -ie do I really have the btc to open a 3 month payment with my landlord? Probably not because I have a roommate to begin with.

Exactly, very good point. Nobody is going to open a payment channel with his landlord and put 3 years of rent in it. Most people already have difficulty coughing up next month's rent! So effectively this would mean they'd need to wire EACH month money into their LN. Why then would they even do that ? Why not just wire the monthly rent directly on-chain ?

[jsfour]

Exactly, very good point. Nobody is going to open a payment channel with his landlord and put 3 years of rent in it. Most people already have difficulty coughing up next month's rent! So effectively this would mean they'd need to wire EACH month money into their LN. Why then would they even do that ? Why not just wire the monthly rent directly on-chain ?

Yeah that's why I think people are just going to open mega channels with central institutions (ala coinbase).

I also think the is a business in extending people credit on LN. As long as its cheaper then the fees most people will do it.

[pebwindkraft]

this is kind of an amusing thread. 
people    complain that bitcoin has too high fees, that you can't pay your coffee.

So everyone is preaching, bitcoin shall be used for high values, and lightning for micro payments.

People seem to get this, but in this thread they complain, lightning cannot be used cause when one puts large amounts in it, it can hardly be afforded over a longer period of time.

How stupid will this go?

[jsfour]

this is kind of an amusing thread.  
people    complain that bitcoin has too high fees, that you can't pay your coffee.

So everyone is preaching, bitcoin shall be used for high values, and lightning for micro payments.

People seem to get this, but in this thread they complain, lightning cannot be used cause when one puts large amounts in it, it can hardly be afforded over a longer period of time.

How stupid will this go?

What would you consider micro? Id argue that paying rent isn't a "large" amount. If we are saying that LN can only be used for super small transacitons, say < 0.001 btc, then im not sure how much it value it will have given the complexity of managing channels.

[iDogLover]

If lightning network works decentralized this will be a nice thing but I highly doubt it.   

[Anti-Cen]

There is no lending of money. It is not an IOU system, there is no lending. All money exists and is accounted for on the blockchain.

Yes agree but they need to lock money in the main BC as i understand it so you cannot owe a hub more than
you have on deposit in the main BC and this also happens between Hubs

Anyone can become a hub but for the conversation lets stick to saying wallet if only one channel opened even if Tor type routing is involved
and uses wallets to achieve this. (think South Korea here)

It isn't a chain, it is a route. The graph of nodes is not the extremely degenerate case of a linked list or hub and spoke model. Sure the maximum amount is limited by the smallest amount in the route, but if that amount is too small, another route can be chosen that allows for more money to be transferred if necessary. Furthermore, each route is for one use only, they aren't permanent and do not always have to be used for payments to the same person.

Major hubs that have many channels open can find a route but opening a channel effectively locks money on
main BC so they can both used set amount in private ledger

Bob----->HubUK<><><><>HubUSA<><><><>HubIndia<------Alice
or
Bob----->HubUK<><><><>HubEurope<><><><>HubIndia<------Alice

Both HubUK and HubUSA would each lock $1m on main BC so they have working
capital flows which could well shift backwards and forwards $100m over a month
but on settlement (close a channel) both locks are removed and if HubUK owes say $50,000
balance to HubUSA then UK gets to pay the BTC miners fees.

Hub discovery is going to be like node discovery and each hub keeps a private ledger
so what happens if HubUK goes down or can the hubs be configured star shape to offer
redundancy  ?

Bob already has a channel open to HubUK and has locked $1000 on BC, sent $500 out, received no payment
so has a balance of $500 with HubUK but Bobs friend Paul uses Bob as a hub and wants to send $2000 to
Ebay but this would not be possible because Bobs channel does not have the balance to cover Paul's purchase

Are we in agreement so far ?

[Anti-Cen]

If lightning network works decentralized this will be a nice thing but I highly doubt it.   

Yes i want to go deep into this but given your public key I think it is quite possible for me to locate you
to become my hub but it would require a type of internal distributed DNS system that might suite
specialist nodes on the system. Better and faster than just broadcasting and it would be a star type
structure with say 100 nodes, this is not centralization and major hubs on the system could be given
human readable name and feedback could be left, dare I even say have a "Trust Rating"  along with Up/Down time

That's not my major concern but the finances of these hubs is because they sure do look
like banks to me who then tie up there own BTC on the main block-chain (Central bank) so they can act
as conduits (Regional banks) and charge the likes of me and you fees.

My argument is not about inflation at this time but about fees because I've heard this
"Virtually free transaction fees" story once too often and yet we have a monopoly of miners ripping
us off and the chances are they become the major hubs and will rip us off even more because they
are organised, we are not and they have lots of BTC and we don't

Banks remember are a free market and just like miners they have both stitched us up like kipper
and it is my public duty to ensure this does not happen again or we end up with even more scams
using Bitcoin than we already have.

Please stick with me on this because i could do with a few partners to represent the public
which is not happening with the development team who now seem like dedicated banker puppets to me.

Once i have a full understanding of what and how they say it works then I want to look at some case studies
because the propaganda about setting up a channel with a coffee shop and buying a coffee a day for
a month and then settling up (Back on block) is not washing with me

[poptok1]

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.

OK, this simplified explanation is very approachable. I have few questions though.

1. I'm opening my own LN channel. Funding it with 1BTC and the fee for it is 100satoshi(simplified)
1a. Need to send bitcoins to new address on specially prepared software?
2. During channel operation, my laptop with LNnode works as an escrow between people and blockchain.
2a. I would have to make my 100satoshis back, so I set[?] fixed[?] fee for people to pay.
3. Channel closes and my "mini block" is sent in to chain. Do I pay another fee for this?
3a. Channel closes because of dispute, will I get my 100sats back? What if disputer has less than 100sats?
     Who pays for "unused" bitcoins TX, that will have to be returned from my channel to me?

[sjefdeklerk]

This article was just posted, pretty much what I've been saying too: https://www.coindesk.com/lightning-network-may-not-solve-bitcoins-scaling-trilemma/

[Anti-Cen]

3. Channel closes and my "mini block" is sent in to chain. Do I pay another fee for this?

During settlement with the hub/bank the balance left in the private ledger gets release so even if you
have $0.01 left in credit then it gets written to the BTC public block-chain and the hub has to pay the
$30 to the miners and locks are then released in the BC that were created when you made a deposit

Remember they are selling lightning to us as if Bob , Alice and David create these money conduits that they call
channels and you better hope that Alice is happy to act as a charity hub for you when she gets hit with having to pay
the miners this $30 transaction fee.

if you on the other hand owe $0.01 to the Alice then you get to pick up the $30 bill and believe me I have
not even started to blow holes in this deception that they have planned for us.

Yes sure anyone can become a hub if they keep the software running all day, have lots of hardware
and tons of BTC to finance the private ledger plus high speed internet connections so that will be the
current miners becoming bankers won't it then

[Anti-Cen]

This article was just posted, pretty much what I've been saying too: https://www.coindesk.com/lightning-network-may-not-solve-bitcoins-scaling-trilemma/

Thanks for the like and it says

Lightning developers are designing a routing facility that identifies which network nodes have sufficient funds to make a payment, calculates the shortest viable route to the payment destination across those nodes, and sends the payment. If this works, it would resolve the bitcoin trilemma.

This is quite logical and deal with inter bank movement of money between banks and if the software is smart it might even
enable more liquidity between the banks in cases where the ledger between banks has become exhausted because the movement
of money has all been in one direction and for all I know the banks could reduce the transaction fee being charged if they need to fill the
buffer of BTC back up to the top.

I have absolutely no trouble with this at all but anyone lending "sufficient funds" and charging a fee is a bank and will incur costs
as they make a profit from you the customer so lets call "Channels" lines of credit and hubs by the rightful name of "Banks" with
routeing being inter bank settlement which really become settlement with central banks much like the FED or BoE

Can no one see why I am screaming

[sjefdeklerk]

3. Channel closes and my "mini block" is sent in to chain. Do I pay another fee for this?

During settlement with the hub/bank the balance left in the private ledger gets release so even if you
have $0.01 left in credit then it gets written to the BTC public block-chain and the hub has to pay the
$30 to the miners and locks are then released in the BC that were created when you made a deposit

Remember they are selling lightning to us as if Bob , Alice and David create these money conduits that they call
channels and you better hope that Alice is happy to act as a charity hub for you when she gets hit with having to pay
the miners this $30 transaction fee.

if you on the other hand owe $0.01 to the Alice then you get to pick up the $30 bill and believe me I have
not even started to blow holes in this deception that they have planned for us.

Yes sure anyone can become a hub if they keep the software running all day, have lots of hardware
and tons of BTC to finance the private ledger plus high speed internet connections so that will be the
current miners becoming bankers won't it then

Wait, I'm not following you. Let's say Alice and Bob open a channel, both put 0.1 BTC in it. They both do some payments and then Bob is broke, and Alice still has 0.02 BTC. They want to close the channel, now what's the rule regarding who pays the miner fee to close/settle the channel? I always assumed they'd just split the miner fee automatically? But since Bob lost all his money already he doesn't care about settling so unless he's forced to pay, then the payment will be for Alice ?

[kumara]

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.

You make a very good point that with LN there is no need to close a payment channel once opened. While videos like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g&feature=youtu.be are spreading the FUD that banks and Blockstream inc will become the payment hubs, in reality the LN opens the possibility for anyone to become a hub if they so choose. In effect the LN will make bitcoin further decentralized but ONLY if Bitcoin holders choose to participate in a bigger way. If the people are too busy or have no interest in acting as hubs then the LN will just be another vehicle for the power elite to control and create more wealth for themselves. The same as throughout history.