Offchain transactions like Lightning Network might be Satoshi's original vision?

[Wind_FURY]

That is part of an email Satoshi sent to Mike Hearn a few years ago. Achow, you are the most technical person I have talked to in the forum, can you confirm that that use of nLockTime is similar or almost similar to how the Lightning Network works? If yes, can we then assume that the Lightning Network was a part of Satoshi's vision?

Plus remember Segwit is the introduction to the Lightning Network. Open a Segwit enabled wallet now!

[1714171213]

1714171213

[1714171213]

1714171213

[1714171213]

1714171213

[1714171213]

1714171213

[Wind_FURY]

Bumping this for everyone to see. I am a little disappointed in the lack of attention to the topic.

Plus I would like to listen to all your opinions about it, and I am not trolling. But Satoshi's response does sound like he's talking about offchain transactions.

[SuperD007]

Wow!!

Thanks for sharing this...

If this is true then I totally agree that it's shocking how little attention this is getting!

[vv181]

That is part of an email Satoshi sent to Mike Hearn a few years ago.

Just because you stated it doesn't mean its real. Show some proof. If the email contains PGP that would be legitimate proof.

[NeuroticFish]

Interesting finding. This should be shown as visible as possible, since some started FUDing that LN is not Bitcoin anymore (of course, they were trying to advertise an altcoin for being any good).

Satoshi was clearly not stupid. And his idea was to create a coin, meaning something you can pay with. He surely understood that waiting tens of minutes for a confirmation is not feasible, but the block times are important for the network. So the only feasible solution is a new layer on top of the known Bitcoin, a layer for payments. My guess is that he just didn't have the time to develop it (health issues?), or it was thought as a test for Bitcoin: to become something really great only if it deserves it.

Although it's only partly on-topic, I will add here something I've read a couple of days ago: an article telling "Lightning is Bitcoin’s TCP/IP stack". The analogy is pretty good. https://medium.com/@melik_87377/lightning-network-enables-unicast-transactions-in-bitcoin-lightning-is-bitcoins-tcp-ip-stack-8ec1d42c14f5

All in all, Lightning Network seems to be the best thing for Bitcoin after its creation. And I would be surprised if Satoshi wouldn't have thought on this, in a way or another.

[Wind_FURY]

That is part of an email Satoshi sent to Mike Hearn a few years ago.

Just because you stated it doesn't mean its real. Show some proof. If the email contains PGP that would be legitimate proof.

For an account made in 2014, you are not well informed. Mike Hearn shared his email correspondence with Satoshi on August last year. Here is the thread about it, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2080206.0

There was also a news report about it, https://www.crypto-news.net/unpublished-satoshi-emails-reveal-early-bitcoin-insight/

It was also in r/Bitcoin where Mike Hearn made replies and comments, https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6t2ci2/never_before_seen_mike_hearn_satoshi_nakamoto/

Before trying to make yourself look "smart", try to do your research. This forum has become so bad because people don't take enough time to be informed.

[franky1]

i feel that this is just trying to make LN seem like it was always part of bitcoin. even though the concept is actually
part of blockstreams 'liquid' concept 2013+.
EG multisig was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011
EG CLTV /CSV was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011

but lets be devils advocate

the 2009-2011 nlocktime would be used by people (real world analogy) in a poker game, players writing their own cheques to 'the house' dated 10 days in the future,
(the house does not counter sign nor has a joint bank account with the poker player)
while the poker game is in play, the house never hands th cheques to the bank to clear/settle.

then if the player needed to buy more poker chips. the player would write out a new cheque dated in 9 days. and the old cheque gets destroyed as its now useless. because the house would obviously prefer to cash a cheque that is dated sooner and for a larger amount
there was no revocation keys. no house having a joint bank account with the poker player to hand funds back inhouse

it would be just a one way payment system.. like a bartab..
satoshi envisioned a small private bartab concept for a small group of people that knew each other.. not a full pupulation co-signing offchain bank branch concept

in no way was it mentioning a single offchain NETWORK for everyone to use because bitcoins blockchain is limited and not able to scale. it was a concept of small parties (friends/family in a room) signing away from the payment system so they can (play poker for instance) without waiting for confirmed funds to get their poker chips

so trying to say satoshi/hearne invented LN or said LN is the acceptable/endorsed as a sole solution is really trying too hard to hide that LN is actually a 2013+ concept by blockstream(liquid)

LN is by magnitudes meandered away from private small group concept
LN is by magnitudes meandered away from the whole purpose of blockchain peer community validation
LN is by magnitudes over promoting but under delivering promises of limitless trustless fast payments.

i have used offline signing concepts and even multisigs between me and family/friends/business partners. i have seen the flaws and limitations
i have run scenarios about the funding of multisigs and replenishing funds and how often it would be required to do so.
i have run scenarios about how centralised the offchain network would need to become to be reliable and well funded and not an obstacle to average joe.

so far all LN devs have done is ensure node A connects to node B to connect to node C to ensure payment gets from a-c.
they have not yet done the long term multiple spending scenarios to see A raids B's holdings when routing a-c and/or B closes the route causing issues between a-c.
EG to use LN you need to have a certain amount just to be an acceptable channel partner, cover punishments and other fee's and then reserve part of that for use of routing. and splitting those funds over a couple 'accounts' just to be a reliable route.
meaning forget a third world user having just $2 and having all the utopian promises so he can buy 20 loaves of bread for the next month+ without hassle.

the devs have not seen that LN is not a scaling solution for everyone. because there are limitations. they have over promised, over promoted and under delivered.

and so there is a requirement to expand the blockchain scaling. NOT stiffling onchain scaling to force people into using limited use LN because of fee wars caused by stiffling onchain scaling.

[Wind_FURY]

i feel that this is just trying to make LN seem like it was always part of bitcoin. even though the concept is actually
part of blockstreams 'liquid' concept 2013+.
EG multisig was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011
EG CLTV /CSV was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011

No this is not about the Lightning Network, but the concept of offchain transactions. Blockstream did not say anything about the concept back in those days. Was Blockstream already alive during that time?

It was Satoshi who said it and clearly expressed that the blockchain can become a "settlement layer".

"Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network". Said Satoshi.

but lets be devils advocate

the 2009-2011 nlocktime would be used by people (real world analogy) in a poker game, players writing their own cheques to 'the house' dated 10 days in the future,
(the house does not counter sign nor has a joint bank account with the poker player)
while the poker game is in play, the house never hands th cheques to the bank to clear/settle.

then if the player needed to buy more poker chips. the player would write out a new cheque dated in 9 days. and the old cheque gets destroyed as its now useless. because the house would obviously prefer to cash a cheque that is dated sooner and for a larger amount
there was no revocation keys. no house having a joint bank account with the poker player to hand funds back inhouse

it would be just a one way payment system.. like a bartab..
satoshi envisioned a small private bartab concept for a small group of people that knew each other.. not a full pupulation co-signing offchain bank branch concept

in no way was it mentioning a single offchain NETWORK for everyone to use because bitcoins blockchain is limited and not able to scale. it was a concept of small parties (friends/family in a room) signing away from the payment system so they can (play poker for instance) without waiting for confirmed funds to get their poker chips

so trying to say satoshi/hearne invented LN or said LN is the acceptable/endorsed as a sole solution is really trying too hard to hide that LN is actually a 2013+ concept by blockstream(liquid)

LN is by magnitudes meandered away from private small group concept
LN is by magnitudes meandered away from the whole purpose of blockchain peer community validation
LN is by magnitudes over promoting but under delivering promises of limitless trustless fast payments.

i have used offline signing concepts and even multisigs between me and family/friends/business partners. i have seen the flaws and limitations
i have run scenarios about the funding of multisigs and replenishing funds and how often it would be required to do so.
i have run scenarios about how centralised the offchain network would need to become to be reliable and well funded and not an obstacle to average joe.

so far all LN devs have done is ensure node A connects to node B to connect to node C to ensure payment gets from a-c.
they have not yet done the long term multiple spending scenarios to see A raids B's holdings when routing a-c and/or B closes the route causing issues between a-c.
EG to use LN you need to have a certain amount just to be an acceptable channel partner, cover punishments and other fee's and then reserve part of that for use of routing. and splitting those funds over a couple 'accounts' just to be a reliable route.
meaning forget a third world user having just $2 and having all the utopian promises so he can buy 20 loaves of bread for the next month+ without hassle.

the devs have not seen that LN is not a scaling solution for everyone. because there are limitations. they have over promised, over promoted and under delivered.

and so there is a requirement to expand the blockchain scaling. NOT stiffling onchain scaling to force people into using limited use LN because of fee wars caused by stiffling onchain scaling.

But Satoshi did say that offchain transactions is one of the ways to help scale the network, did he not?

I am not talking entirely about the implementation of the Lightning Network, but the concept behind offchain transactions.

[Zin-Zang]

i feel that this is just trying to make LN seem like it was always part of bitcoin. even though the concept is actually
part of blockstreams 'liquid' concept 2013+.
EG multisig was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011
EG CLTV /CSV was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011

No this is not about the Lightning Network, but the concept of offchain transactions. Blockstream did not say anything about the concept back in those days. Was Blockstream already alive during that time?

It was Satoshi who said it and clearly expressed that the blockchain can become a "settlement layer".

"Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network". Said Satoshi.

but lets be devils advocate

the 2009-2011 nlocktime would be used by people (real world analogy) in a poker game, players writing their own cheques to 'the house' dated 10 days in the future,
(the house does not counter sign nor has a joint bank account with the poker player)
while the poker game is in play, the house never hands th cheques to the bank to clear/settle.

then if the player needed to buy more poker chips. the player would write out a new cheque dated in 9 days. and the old cheque gets destroyed as its now useless. because the house would obviously prefer to cash a cheque that is dated sooner and for a larger amount
there was no revocation keys. no house having a joint bank account with the poker player to hand funds back inhouse

it would be just a one way payment system.. like a bartab..
satoshi envisioned a small private bartab concept for a small group of people that knew each other.. not a full pupulation co-signing offchain bank branch concept

in no way was it mentioning a single offchain NETWORK for everyone to use because bitcoins blockchain is limited and not able to scale. it was a concept of small parties (friends/family in a room) signing away from the payment system so they can (play poker for instance) without waiting for confirmed funds to get their poker chips

so trying to say satoshi/hearne invented LN or said LN is the acceptable/endorsed as a sole solution is really trying too hard to hide that LN is actually a 2013+ concept by blockstream(liquid)

LN is by magnitudes meandered away from private small group concept
LN is by magnitudes meandered away from the whole purpose of blockchain peer community validation
LN is by magnitudes over promoting but under delivering promises of limitless trustless fast payments.

i have used offline signing concepts and even multisigs between me and family/friends/business partners. i have seen the flaws and limitations
i have run scenarios about the funding of multisigs and replenishing funds and how often it would be required to do so.
i have run scenarios about how centralised the offchain network would need to become to be reliable and well funded and not an obstacle to average joe.

so far all LN devs have done is ensure node A connects to node B to connect to node C to ensure payment gets from a-c.
they have not yet done the long term multiple spending scenarios to see A raids B's holdings when routing a-c and/or B closes the route causing issues between a-c.
EG to use LN you need to have a certain amount just to be an acceptable channel partner, cover punishments and other fee's and then reserve part of that for use of routing. and splitting those funds over a couple 'accounts' just to be a reliable route.
meaning forget a third world user having just $2 and having all the utopian promises so he can buy 20 loaves of bread for the next month+ without hassle.

the devs have not seen that LN is not a scaling solution for everyone. because there are limitations. they have over promised, over promoted and under delivered.

and so there is a requirement to expand the blockchain scaling. NOT stiffling onchain scaling to force people into using limited use LN because of fee wars caused by stiffling onchain scaling.

But Satoshi did say that offchain transactions is one of the ways to help scale the network, did he not?

I am not talking entirely about the implementation of the Lightning Network, but the concept behind offchain transactions.

Some Exchanges such as Cryptopia & Trade Satoshi can do Offchain Scaling with Any amount & any crypto on their site Right Now.

An Exchange Offchain Transactions are not limited and are not time locked for extended times.
Basically an Exchange can provide everything LN promised (but has yet to fulfill)  without the dangers or limitations of LN.

Since an exchange is only transferring the actual virtual coins and not creating a separate payment (Bank Notes Style) System ,
the exchanges are not going to be required to get a banking license like an LN Hub will be required too.

Exchange can also process these offchain transactions at a much cheaper fee structure than LN Hubs.

Comparisons
Exchanges Offchain Transactions  Verses LN Offchain Transactions
No Amount Limit                          verses  Amount Limits
No Time Locking                           verses  Time Locking
Easy to use, send to user name      verses  Extremely Complicated
Lower Fee Structure                       verses  Higher Fee Structure (due to needing multiple hubs to complete channels)
Centralized to that exchange           verses  Centralized to the # of hubs needed to complete the channel
Received Onchain Payment Faster    verses  Slower receipt of Onchain Payments due to waiting for the time locks to expire
Better Support Structure                  verses  No Real Support Structure

For people wanting fast affordable offchain transactions, Exchanges outperform LN Hubs.   

[BitcoinNewbie15]

i feel that this is just trying to make LN seem like it was always part of bitcoin. even though the concept is actually
part of blockstreams 'liquid' concept 2013+.
EG multisig was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011
EG CLTV /CSV was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011

No this is not about the Lightning Network, but the concept of offchain transactions. Blockstream did not say anything about the concept back in those days. Was Blockstream already alive during that time?

It was Satoshi who said it and clearly expressed that the blockchain can become a "settlement layer".

"Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network". Said Satoshi.

but lets be devils advocate

the 2009-2011 nlocktime would be used by people (real world analogy) in a poker game, players writing their own cheques to 'the house' dated 10 days in the future,
(the house does not counter sign nor has a joint bank account with the poker player)
while the poker game is in play, the house never hands th cheques to the bank to clear/settle.

then if the player needed to buy more poker chips. the player would write out a new cheque dated in 9 days. and the old cheque gets destroyed as its now useless. because the house would obviously prefer to cash a cheque that is dated sooner and for a larger amount
there was no revocation keys. no house having a joint bank account with the poker player to hand funds back inhouse

it would be just a one way payment system.. like a bartab..
satoshi envisioned a small private bartab concept for a small group of people that knew each other.. not a full pupulation co-signing offchain bank branch concept

in no way was it mentioning a single offchain NETWORK for everyone to use because bitcoins blockchain is limited and not able to scale. it was a concept of small parties (friends/family in a room) signing away from the payment system so they can (play poker for instance) without waiting for confirmed funds to get their poker chips

so trying to say satoshi/hearne invented LN or said LN is the acceptable/endorsed as a sole solution is really trying too hard to hide that LN is actually a 2013+ concept by blockstream(liquid)

LN is by magnitudes meandered away from private small group concept
LN is by magnitudes meandered away from the whole purpose of blockchain peer community validation
LN is by magnitudes over promoting but under delivering promises of limitless trustless fast payments.

i have used offline signing concepts and even multisigs between me and family/friends/business partners. i have seen the flaws and limitations
i have run scenarios about the funding of multisigs and replenishing funds and how often it would be required to do so.
i have run scenarios about how centralised the offchain network would need to become to be reliable and well funded and not an obstacle to average joe.

so far all LN devs have done is ensure node A connects to node B to connect to node C to ensure payment gets from a-c.
they have not yet done the long term multiple spending scenarios to see A raids B's holdings when routing a-c and/or B closes the route causing issues between a-c.
EG to use LN you need to have a certain amount just to be an acceptable channel partner, cover punishments and other fee's and then reserve part of that for use of routing. and splitting those funds over a couple 'accounts' just to be a reliable route.
meaning forget a third world user having just $2 and having all the utopian promises so he can buy 20 loaves of bread for the next month+ without hassle.

the devs have not seen that LN is not a scaling solution for everyone. because there are limitations. they have over promised, over promoted and under delivered.

and so there is a requirement to expand the blockchain scaling. NOT stiffling onchain scaling to force people into using limited use LN because of fee wars caused by stiffling onchain scaling.

But Satoshi did say that offchain transactions is one of the ways to help scale the network, did he not?

I am not talking entirely about the implementation of the Lightning Network, but the concept behind offchain transactions.

It does seem like satoshi has envisioned second layer technology for scaling. He also does mention Bigger blocks, but I don't think satoshi forsaw the centralization of mining like it is today. So the Bigger blocks would have further increased centralization and Satoshi may not have realized that at the time. Thanks for sharing this, definitely does seem like he was talking about a second layer in that email correspondence.

[Zin-Zang]

It does seem like satoshi has envisioned second layer technology for scaling. He also does mention Bigger blocks, but I don't think satoshi forsaw the centralization of mining like it is today. So the Bigger blocks would have further increased centralization and Satoshi may not have realized that at the time. Thanks for sharing this, definitely does seem like he was talking about a second layer in that email correspondence.

The Bigger Block increasing centralization is a myth, LN Hubs will cause a greater centralization than anything on the onchain network.
If you want a better understanding
read the following:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg36005734#msg36005734


What would be interesting is when/if LN is ever safe to use, and actually has people making thousands of transactions per minute,
why does everyone act like the Hub Database and memory requirements are not going to grow exponentially.

Has anyone actually calculated at what rate LN Hub Data requirements will increase per transaction.
Also any LN HUBs that transact in the US will be required to hold all data for 5 years past where a person no longer used that hub.
So if the LN hubs think they can just delete a channel records after closing , they are going to be in for a rude awaking.  

 

[MrCrank]

Is it true?
Is nLockTime similar the Lightning Network?
Where can I read more info about this, very interesting.
Thanks.

[rommelzkie]

As far as i can remember. There is no Lightning network introduced into bitcoin original whitepaper. Lightning Network and Segwit was NOT introduced by satoshi to solve the issue of slowing bitcoin transactions. Satoshi already knew this will happen that's why he gave an option to increase the MB per block.

Correct me if im wrong. thank you.

[BitcoinNewbie15]

It does seem like satoshi has envisioned second layer technology for scaling. He also does mention Bigger blocks, but I don't think satoshi forsaw the centralization of mining like it is today. So the Bigger blocks would have further increased centralization and Satoshi may not have realized that at the time. Thanks for sharing this, definitely does seem like he was talking about a second layer in that email correspondence.

The Bigger Block increasing centralization is a myth, LN Hubs will cause a greater centralization than anything on the onchain network.
If you want a better understanding
read the following:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg36005734#msg36005734


What would be interesting is when/if LN is ever safe to use, and actually has people making thousands of transactions per minute,
why does everyone act like the Hub Database and memory requirements are not going to grow exponentially.

Has anyone actually calculated at what rate LN Hub Data requirements will increase per transaction.
Also any LN HUBs that transact in the US will be required to hold all data for 5 years past where a person no longer used that hub.
So if the LN hubs think they can just delete a channel records after closing , they are going to be in for a rude awaking.  

 

This is interesting, I was under the impression that Bigger blocks require more specialized hardware and bandwidth requirements. While I do agree that LN Increases centralization, I don't think that is a problem, as long as the base layer is still decentralized. You wouldn't necessarily need a decentralized network to pay for coffee, although it would be nice, but blockchains inherently do not scale.

As you can see the Bitcoin Core Blockchain is ~33GB bigger now than the Bitcoin Cash Blockchain.
Bitcoin Cash just raised the upper limit possible so they have no fear of transactions congestion for years to come.
Bitcoin Core was congested for many months with insanely high fees, Bitcoin Cash will not have to worry about it.

As you can see here :
https://www.blocktrail.com/BCC
Bitcoin Cash is using on average less than 100kb per block, so the fact it is taking less resources to run than Bitcoin Core.

So the worry that Bitcoin Cash will be more expensive to run is a pure Myth at the present time.

This part is what I'm confused about. Isn't BTCs blockchain growing more than BCHs because on Bitcoins blockchain there are significantly more transactions taking place? Theoretically, if everyone were to suddenly stop using BTC and start using BCH, and it had say 5 million transactions per day on chain, wouldn't the blockchain be growing faster than BTCs ever has? Making the bandwidth and resource requirements very very high making full nodes limited to centralized server farms? I admit I have a limited understanding of how the blocks and transactions propagate through the network, so if you could clarify this for me I would appreciate it! Thanks!

[ABCbits]

Can't we stop claiming Coin X or Technology Y as Satoshi's original vision? Even though Satoshi made huge contribution, that doesn't mean Satoshi's vision is perfect or still relevant/up-to-date with current condition.

This is interesting, I was under the impression that Bigger blocks require more specialized hardware and bandwidth requirements. While I do agree that LN Increases centralization, I don't think that is a problem, as long as the base layer is still decentralized. You wouldn't necessarily need a decentralized network to pay for coffee, although it would be nice, but blockchains inherently do not scale.

As you can see the Bitcoin Core Blockchain is ~33GB bigger now than the Bitcoin Cash Blockchain.
Bitcoin Cash just raised the upper limit possible so they have no fear of transactions congestion for years to come.
Bitcoin Core was congested for many months with insanely high fees, Bitcoin Cash will not have to worry about it.

As you can see here :
https://www.blocktrail.com/BCC
Bitcoin Cash is using on average less than 100kb per block, so the fact it is taking less resources to run than Bitcoin Core.

So the worry that Bitcoin Cash will be more expensive to run is a pure Myth at the present time.

This part is what I'm confused about. Isn't BTCs blockchain growing more than BCHs because on Bitcoins blockchain there are significantly more transactions taking place? Theoretically, if everyone were to suddenly stop using BTC and start using BCH, and it had say 5 million transactions per day on chain, wouldn't the blockchain be growing faster than BTCs ever has? Making the bandwidth and resource requirements very very high making full nodes limited to centralized server farms? I admit I have a limited understanding of how the blocks and transactions propagate through the network, so if you could clarify this for me I would appreciate it! Thanks!

You're mostly right.

But most people who support huge block size don't think regular people should able to run full nodes. If only rich miners or people who can run full nodes, they could change the protocol rules secretly and regular people wouldn't know about it.

[Zin-Zang]

It does seem like satoshi has envisioned second layer technology for scaling. He also does mention Bigger blocks, but I don't think satoshi forsaw the centralization of mining like it is today. So the Bigger blocks would have further increased centralization and Satoshi may not have realized that at the time. Thanks for sharing this, definitely does seem like he was talking about a second layer in that email correspondence.

The Bigger Block increasing centralization is a myth, LN Hubs will cause a greater centralization than anything on the onchain network.
If you want a better understanding
read the following:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg36005734#msg36005734


What would be interesting is when/if LN is ever safe to use, and actually has people making thousands of transactions per minute,
why does everyone act like the Hub Database and memory requirements are not going to grow exponentially.

Has anyone actually calculated at what rate LN Hub Data requirements will increase per transaction.
Also any LN HUBs that transact in the US will be required to hold all data for 5 years past where a person no longer used that hub.
So if the LN hubs think they can just delete a channel records after closing , they are going to be in for a rude awaking.  

 

This is interesting, I was under the impression that Bigger blocks require more specialized hardware and bandwidth requirements. While I do agree that LN Increases centralization, I don't think that is a problem, as long as the base layer is still decentralized. You wouldn't necessarily need a decentralized network to pay for coffee, although it would be nice, but blockchains inherently do not scale.

As you can see the Bitcoin Core Blockchain is ~33GB bigger now than the Bitcoin Cash Blockchain.
Bitcoin Cash just raised the upper limit possible so they have no fear of transactions congestion for years to come.
Bitcoin Core was congested for many months with insanely high fees, Bitcoin Cash will not have to worry about it.

As you can see here :
https://www.blocktrail.com/BCC
Bitcoin Cash is using on average less than 100kb per block, so the fact it is taking less resources to run than Bitcoin Core.

So the worry that Bitcoin Cash will be more expensive to run is a pure Myth at the present time.

This part is what I'm confused about. Isn't BTCs blockchain growing more than BCHs because on Bitcoins blockchain there are significantly more transactions taking place? Theoretically, if everyone were to suddenly stop using BTC and start using BCH, and it had say 5 million transactions per day on chain, wouldn't the blockchain be growing faster than BTCs ever has? Making the bandwidth and resource requirements very very high making full nodes limited to centralized server farms? I admit I have a limited understanding of how the blocks and transactions propagate through the network, so if you could clarify this for me I would appreciate it! Thanks!

BTC blockchain is growing faster than BCH's due to more transactions being stored on it,
However if all BTC transactions moved to BCH, it would grow at the exact same rate, not an inflated rate.

The only difference is BCH would not have the inflated onchain fees because they are backlogged.
Plus Offchain scaling with any coin can be done much cheaper and easier using an exchange instead of LN beta code.

What is funny is people act like transaction data , won't take up resources if used in an LN hub, when nothing can be further from the truth.
They claim it will have thousands of transactions per second , so it's database should grow faster than either onchain version.

The true issue here is that if you want random people to maintain full onchain nodes , there needs to a compensation to cover their costs , like what Dash pays there masternodes.
Thinking anyone besides those heavy invested are going to maintain any nodes for free is naive fantasy which is the premise for the myth that larger blocks will make it unreasonable for casual users to run a node.

In other words if either network , cut the full nodes a % of the transaction fees, you see more than enough nodes from random people to satisfy everyone.

[bettercrypto]

That is part of an email Satoshi sent to Mike Hearn a few years ago.

Just because you stated it doesn't mean its real. Show some proof. If the email contains PGP that would be legitimate proof.

I look for the OP's reference and I think he/she didn't spread any hoax. What the OP said might be true because we don't know who is Satoshi Nakamoto. Maybe, he knew already that this things might happen when he invented the BTC. Right from the start, I already believe that Satoshi can do the lightning networks since he already proved that he can make a change using the blockchain technology.
We admit it or not but Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the greates inventor of all times and he can make innovation with his own discovery.

[BitcoinNewbie15]

It does seem like satoshi has envisioned second layer technology for scaling. He also does mention Bigger blocks, but I don't think satoshi forsaw the centralization of mining like it is today. So the Bigger blocks would have further increased centralization and Satoshi may not have realized that at the time. Thanks for sharing this, definitely does seem like he was talking about a second layer in that email correspondence.

The Bigger Block increasing centralization is a myth, LN Hubs will cause a greater centralization than anything on the onchain network.
If you want a better understanding
read the following:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg36005734#msg36005734


What would be interesting is when/if LN is ever safe to use, and actually has people making thousands of transactions per minute,
why does everyone act like the Hub Database and memory requirements are not going to grow exponentially.

Has anyone actually calculated at what rate LN Hub Data requirements will increase per transaction.
Also any LN HUBs that transact in the US will be required to hold all data for 5 years past where a person no longer used that hub.
So if the LN hubs think they can just delete a channel records after closing , they are going to be in for a rude awaking.  

 

This is interesting, I was under the impression that Bigger blocks require more specialized hardware and bandwidth requirements. While I do agree that LN Increases centralization, I don't think that is a problem, as long as the base layer is still decentralized. You wouldn't necessarily need a decentralized network to pay for coffee, although it would be nice, but blockchains inherently do not scale.

As you can see the Bitcoin Core Blockchain is ~33GB bigger now than the Bitcoin Cash Blockchain.
Bitcoin Cash just raised the upper limit possible so they have no fear of transactions congestion for years to come.
Bitcoin Core was congested for many months with insanely high fees, Bitcoin Cash will not have to worry about it.

As you can see here :
https://www.blocktrail.com/BCC
Bitcoin Cash is using on average less than 100kb per block, so the fact it is taking less resources to run than Bitcoin Core.

So the worry that Bitcoin Cash will be more expensive to run is a pure Myth at the present time.

This part is what I'm confused about. Isn't BTCs blockchain growing more than BCHs because on Bitcoins blockchain there are significantly more transactions taking place? Theoretically, if everyone were to suddenly stop using BTC and start using BCH, and it had say 5 million transactions per day on chain, wouldn't the blockchain be growing faster than BTCs ever has? Making the bandwidth and resource requirements very very high making full nodes limited to centralized server farms? I admit I have a limited understanding of how the blocks and transactions propagate through the network, so if you could clarify this for me I would appreciate it! Thanks!

BTC blockchain is growing faster than BCH's due to more transactions being stored on it,
However if all BTC transactions moved to BCH, it would grow at the exact same rate, not an inflated rate.

That's true, but because of BCHs increased block size the chain can grow much larger than BTCs. BTC has an effective 4Mb block size due to Segwit (some even claim 1.6 mb - 2 mb). if BCH had constant full blocks at 16mb or even 32mb its blockchain would grow significantly faster and cause centralization due to the requirements of running a full node. BTC would be at 4 MB and everything else would take place off chain, Thus retaining BTCs decentralization at the base layer.

[pooya87]

For people wanting fast affordable offchain transactions, Exchanges outperform LN Hubs[/b].[/color]   

then you will be using some numbers on a centralized database, you are not using bitcoin! if that database were to disappear some day, your money will disappear with it also. and every couple of months we are seeing at least one exchange be hacked...

[Zin-Zang]

For people wanting fast affordable offchain transactions, Exchanges outperform LN Hubs.  

then you will be using some numbers on a centralized database, you are not using bitcoin! if that database were to disappear some day, your money will disappear with it also. and every couple of months we are seeing at least one exchange be hacked...

Exchanges don't require time locking, meaning you can make your transactions and move your funds out immediately decreasing any centralization risk.
You only need to move in funds for a specific payment, where as with LN you will need to Time Lock a Larger Portion of your funds.

Exchanges are working right now, LN is not!

If you use LN Notes , you are not really using Bitcoin either.
(Notes are a promise the asset (bitcoin) will be delivered at the end of the contract/channel closing.)

Will you even know which LN Hub you are using and if the LN Hub crashes before a channel closes, what is to stop one of the other parties from stealing the others funds.

LN will centralize control to a few Major hubs, an Exchange does the same No real difference, but is more open and honest about the fact.

I think if people ever start using LN, it limitations will far outstrip any supposed benefits, but time will tell.