Lighting Network is a BANK'S TRAP?

[MkGregor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

I stopped using Bitcoin since late November. I do not transact in bitcoin, only in LTC or ETH.

But I was watching today some videos trying to understand the lighting network better, and I came across this one - and the guy makes a point, that lighting network has to be pre-funded with the money. And he makes a conclusion, that it is somehow related to banks.
What do you guys think?

[1715084163]

1715084163

[1715084163]

1715084163

[1715084163]

1715084163

[TheQuin]

So he's making the argument that only banks have Bitcoin to open a channel with. That's a rather ludicrous starting point to build an argument from. There's a lot of this sort of FUD about mainly from those that support Bcash. It really doesn't make any sense and is trying to distract from the fact that if you attempt to scale simply by ever increasing blocksize eventually you end up in the situation where only large supercomputers in data centres will be able to run as nodes.

[MkGregor]

So he's making the argument that only banks have Bitcoin to open a channel with. That's a rather ludicrous starting point to build an argument from. There's a lot of this sort of FUD about mainly from those that support Bcash. It really doesn't make any sense and is trying to distract from the fact that if you attempt to scale simply by ever increasing blocksize eventually you end up in the situation where only large supercomputers in data centres will be able to run as nodes.

But he has some truth in it as well. As from what I read, to get into top 15% holders, you only need 15BTC, which means, that majority of people have way less than that... So how much does it actually take to run a lighting network node?

[TheQuin]

But he has some truth in it as well. As from what I read, to get into top 15% holders, you only need 15BTC, which means, that majority of people have way less than that... So how much does it actually take to run a lighting network node?

Why do you need to be in the top 15% of holders? You can make a node and open channels with any amount you want, there is no lower limit. Again the whole argument is based on misleading you.

[bitart]

So he's making the argument that only banks have Bitcoin to open a channel with. That's a rather ludicrous starting point to build an argument from. There's a lot of this sort of FUD about mainly from those that support Bcash. It really doesn't make any sense and is trying to distract from the fact that if you attempt to scale simply by ever increasing blocksize eventually you end up in the situation where only large supercomputers in data centres will be able to run as nodes.

But he has some truth in it as well. As from what I read, to get into top 15% holders, you only need 15BTC, which means, that majority of people have way less than that... So how much does it actually take to run a lighting network node?

Why to be top 15%? Makes no sense for me. Do you think that it will be only the top 15% who can earn on the (really small) transaction fees of the lightning network? If there will be fees at all in the beginning? Guys are running LN nodes on Raspberry PIs and opening channels with the amount of 0,01 or 0,05 BTC just for testing purposes now, so to start a node and be the part of the network is not a big deal at the moment. Maybe in the future there will be a need for big and reliable nodes to route the transactions with a high amount of BTC, but to maintain a bigger hub will cost real money and this will make the node to charge you higher fees compared to the average (or compared to 0 fees). If they will charge higher fees, the protocol will search for another route where your transaction will arrive with less fees. Or, if it's a really higher amount (not a coffee or a weekend shopping) and no hurry, the good old onchain transaction will be also an option still. So there's nothing with banks and giant nodes but an onion type network that will have real possibilities.

[peter0425]

So he's making the argument that only banks have Bitcoin to open a channel with. That's a rather ludicrous starting point to build an argument from. There's a lot of this sort of FUD about mainly from those that support Bcash. It really doesn't make any sense and is trying to distract from the fact that if you attempt to scale simply by ever increasing blocksize eventually you end up in the situation where only large supercomputers in data centres will be able to run as nodes.

But he has some truth in it as well. As from what I read, to get into top 15% holders, you only need 15BTC, which means, that majority of people have way less than that... So how much does it actually take to run a lighting network node?

This is one of the funniest argument I ever heard, really, I literally laughing about the top 15% arguments. As what others have said, you can easily open a payment channel and that's it, no need to be technical here.

And you know what's more funnier? We even haven't implemented it yet, but you can see there's a lot of FUD going around now. Just imagine when its been rolled out, we might see countless threads bashing LN and hundred of arguments against it.

[MakeMoneyBtc]

Until lightning network is going to launch no one can predit what is really is and how it is going to work because there arent a lot of informations about it so it is hard to even speak about it. It is possible that banks are behind network lightning and they want to take control of bitcoin but it is hard to belive that they went that far and they are going to create such a big project when banks dont even care very much about bitcoin.

[TheQuin]

Until lightning network is going to launch....

And you know what's more funnier? We even haven't implemented it yet....

Let me be the bringer of good news. The Lightning Network is already with us. There are currently 700 nodes and 1842 channels. The average capacity of a channel is 336.7k satoshis and the average node has 5.2 channels. Not exactly much sign of 'banks' yet and it is unlikely there ever will be.

Pretty picture of the live LN https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/
Loads of stats http://lnstat.ideoflux.com:3000/dashboard/db/lightning-network?refresh=5m&orgId=1

[RawDog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

I stopped using Bitcoin since late November. I do not transact in bitcoin, only in LTC or ETH.

But I was watching today some videos trying to understand the lighting network better, and I came across this one - and the guy makes a point, that lighting network has to be pre-funded with the money. And he makes a conclusion, that it is somehow related to banks.
What do you guys think?

LN is a giant raging disaster.  Scaling is not easy.  But Blockstream tries to takeover Bitcoin and act like it is the Daddy.  That is bank mentality. Sure to fail.  100% not going to work.  Ethereum is trying other scaling solutions.  Why do you think all the alts are rising so much over the last year?  Because nobody believes in the Blockstream approach to hostile takeover of Bitcoin.  No wonder they kicked Greg Maxwell out finally.  He is poison.  But I think it is now too late for Bitcoin to get back to its old philisophical roots.  Bitcoin bet everything on LN.  What could go wrong?

[majest3]

Lightning Network is going to have major problems, you cant receive payment unless you are online and your wallet is open. Each jump has to have sufficient funds to allow the payment to pass through, this will lead to a lot of blockages.

Lots of very smart people have come out and said it won't work - Dan Larimer, The guys from OpenBazaar have stated they will not be using it on there platform, as it is a security risk and a nightmare for any seller trying to receive payment for there goods and services.

Only way it can work effectively is if you have hubs that process the payments through them and this is most likely going to be the banking institutions.

Just my opinion!

[HeRetiK]

But I was watching today some videos trying to understand the lighting network better, and I came across this one - and the guy makes a point, that lighting network has to be pre-funded with the money. And he makes a conclusion, that it is somehow related to banks.
What do you guys think?

Your BTC wallet has to be pre-funded with money before you are able to use it. Same with your ETH and LTC wallet. So what's the argument?

LN is a giant raging disaster.

Please expand on how LN is turning out to be disaster?

Scaling is not easy.

Indeed. Not as easy as simply increasing the block size, for example.

But Blockstream tries to takeover Bitcoin and act like it is the Daddy.  That is bank mentality. Sure to fail.  100% not going to work.

Blockstream is only one of multiple development teams working on LN. LN is decentralized both in regards of how transactions are handled and how it is developed. Using LN is and will remain optional. It does not lock out other scaling solutions that may turn up in the future.

Ethereum is trying other scaling solutions.

Payment channels being one of them. Nonetheless as mentioned above, LN does not prevent other scaling solutions to be deployed in the future, instead of LN.

Why do you think all the alts are rising so much over the last year?

FOMO, greed and misinformation.

Because nobody believes in the Blockstream approach to hostile takeover of Bitcoin.

How is multiple development teams working on an optional scaling solution a hostile takeover of Bitcoin?

[talkbitcoin]

I stopped using Bitcoin since late November. I do not transact in bitcoin, only in LTC or ETH.

in other words you replaced the decentralized currency with the copy of it (LTC) and a centralized token (ETH)!

But I was watching today some videos trying to understand the lighting network better, and I came across this one - and the guy makes a point,

and you chose the most biased video you could find out there among a lot of good videos that are actually on top of search results!

that lighting network has to be pre-funded with the money. And he makes a conclusion, that it is somehow related to banks.
What do you guys think?

being pre-funded doesn't make it related to banks.
having concerns regarding centralization of LN nodes and arguing about needing funds for a node to be a part of the network and things like that are valid arguments but using these arguments to just spread FUD like the video seems to be doing is just dumb.

[Anti-Cen]

Well said OP and you got the first ever merit that i ever sent out here

Here is the network map of the banker hubs connecting up with each other on the
lightning network https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/ and also
here is the LN white paper https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

Thanks for having the guts to stand up to the censorship that we often see going
on here and if deleted comments counted as merits then I would have more
than all of you !

[TheQuin]

Here is the network map of the banker hubs connecting up with each other on the
lightning network https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/ and also
here is the LN white paper https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

Can you point out one single node that is run by a bank?

Thanks for having the guts to stand up to the censorship that we often see going
on here and if deleted comments counted as merits then I would have more
than all of you !

There is no censorship, you have had posts deleted because you spammed the same text into multiple threads and that's against the forum rules.

[Anti-Cen]

Indeed. Not as easy as simply increasing the block size, for example.

100% agree but they have had 8 years to come up with a solution so the LN solution they
picked in the end looks like a case of problem-reaction-solutions to me and we are being
lead around by the nose if we let them.

if "On-Block" brought people to Bitcoin then LN "Off-Block" should have them leaving

[RawDog]

Indeed. Not as easy as simply increasing the block size, for example.

100% agree but they have had 8 years to come up with a solution so the LN solution they
picked in the end looks like a case of problem-reaction-solutions to me and we are being
lead around by the nose if we let them.

if "On-Block" brought people to Bitcoin then LN "Off-Block" should have them leaving

There is no need for a debate.  These people won't listen anyway.  Let them have their stupid Lightning.  They will find out when nobody comes to play.  Since they ran off Mike Hearn, another 22 Billion (Bitcoin Cash) left their platform.  Counting alts - so many billions more are no longer interested in what Bitcoin has to offer.  LN is pure stupidity.  It is too late.  Each day more leaves their broken platform.  The market will 'vote'.  Has voted.  Let these guys talk all day long.  Finally, their market share will be zero and they will have all their good reasons to consider by themselves.  Only the least technically capable remain as 'lovers of Bitcoin'.  Of course, and a few guys at the top who are determined to control Bitcoin via LN and other privatization schemes.

[antagonist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

I stopped using Bitcoin since late November. I do not transact in bitcoin, only in LTC or ETH.

But I was watching today some videos trying to understand the lighting network better, and I came across this one - and the guy makes a point, that lighting network has to be pre-funded with the money. And he makes a conclusion, that it is somehow related to banks.
What do you guys think?

why you are so much scared of bank ? you no understand how to use tool like this one to create better life for famaily ? this one no problem for us who understand true thing about bitcoin
you have say it several time you no use bitcoin instead you do trade thing with litcoin and etheriums so why this thing concerns you
instead you keep use eth to play game with the other small mens whoms are using this one to do childish game with eachother , etherium never reach same level with bitcoin even when i look on litceoin me and famaily we laugh so many time at that one
lightening network is future for us and we will enjoy this one , to me it no matter who behind of scenes working on this

[Aura]

What does it matter when more than 95% of all transactions are processed through centralized wallets or exchanges like Coinbase. This technology won't make it much more centralized for them than it already is. Also you don't have to use lightning network, it's just a layer build upon the original system. At least some scaling is going to be solved because there are definitely people that are going to use it.

[alyssa85]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

I stopped using Bitcoin since late November. I do not transact in bitcoin, only in LTC or ETH.

But I was watching today some videos trying to understand the lighting network better, and I came across this one - and the guy makes a point, that lighting network has to be pre-funded with the money. And he makes a conclusion, that it is somehow related to banks.
What do you guys think?

Either banks, or big existing crypto entities like Coinbase. Coinbase already functions like a lightning hub in that transactions between coinbase users happen off-chain within Coinbase's internal database.

My prediction is that the first lightning hubs will be wallet providers like Coinbase, Blockchain.info and the exchanges. And then the banks will get in on the act.

[HeRetiK]

There is no need for a debate.  These people won't listen anyway.  [...]  The market will 'vote'.  Has voted.  Let these guys talk all day long. [...]

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing

I've evaluated all the information that is available to me and came to my own conclusion. I'm sure you did the same. Only time will tell which perspective is closest to reality. Enjoy the ride, see you on the other side mate.

[Biomech]

I always rather suspected the Visa organization, more than banks

It makes it possible for them to play in the crypto world. Which, frankly, will cause a rise in value.

As for Mike Hearn being 'run off', well... that's what happens when all you do is whine and cry.

I think Lightning and similar side/off chain proposals make a lot of sense for small transactions.

Basically, if you want BTC to remain a small pool of big fish, then you leave it as is. OTOH, changing the protocol itself is a dangerous game. So why NOT build on top of it?

Yes, there's a degree of trust. Search through my posts from 5 years ago and you'll see my position on that has not changed. A trustless system is a great concept. It works, too, as long as humans are not involved. Bitcoin had escrow services at least as early as 2010. Do you think that was because they weren't needed?

LN makes small transactions possible, which makes BTC accessible to the masses. They are mostly too busy getting on with their lives to care about extreme security. Very good security would be an improvement in their daily lives. This, in turn, will lead to wider adoption, making the main BTC chain much more valuable in the long run.

Is it the only possible solution to scaling? No. Has anything else been proposed that would allow bitcoin to approach even 10 percent of what VISA does daily? Not that I'm aware of. If so, please enlighten me. But as it stands, BTC is really only good for either large purchases or non time sensitive purchases. You cannot compete in the world of daily business on that scale. BTC has caught the interest of the mainstream, finally, and we're gonna shoot it in the foot over who's dick is longer. Come on, people. LN does NOT stop other development, it doesn't HARM the main chain, and it just might work. If you're bitching about it and not actively developing something better, you're just bitching.

[Kprawn]

Indeed. Not as easy as simply increasing the block size, for example.

100% agree but they have had 8 years to come up with a solution so the LN solution they
picked in the end looks like a case of problem-reaction-solutions to me and we are being
lead around by the nose if we let them.

if "On-Block" brought people to Bitcoin then LN "Off-Block" should have them leaving

There is no need for a debate.  These people won't listen anyway.  Let them have their stupid Lightning.  They will find out when nobody comes to play.  Since they ran off Mike Hearn, another 22 Billion (Bitcoin Cash) left their platform.  Counting alts - so many billions more are no longer interested in what Bitcoin has to offer.  LN is pure stupidity.  It is too late.  Each day more leaves their broken platform.  The market will 'vote'.  Has voted.  Let these guys talk all day long.  Finally, their market share will be zero and they will have all their good reasons to consider by themselves.  Only the least technically capable remain as 'lovers of Bitcoin'.  Of course, and a few guys at the top who are determined to control Bitcoin via LN and other privatization schemes.

Once the Lightning Network is fully implemented, much of that money will filter back into Bitcoin, because most of these

coins will not be able to compete. {Most of the money that floated their way was people who got sick of high miners fees

and slow confirmations, and now things has changed again.} A lot of the problems was directly attributed to someone

spamming the Legacy network and creating this problem. Since SegWit has gained traction, most spamming was reduced.

{Spamming SegWit is also more expensive to get the same results} 

Lots of dirty tactics being used to stall or stop Bitcoin, but we always counter these attacks with better technology. 

[NightMar_1St]

I think We can create a new coin to help comercial or business
BTC too expensive and too long to trade

[MkGregor]

Why do you need to be in the top 15% of holders? You can make a node and open channels with any amount you want, there is no lower limit. Again the whole argument is based on misleading you.

Why to be top 15%? Makes no sense for me. Do you think that it will be only the top 15% who can earn on the (really small) transaction fees of the lightning network? If there will be fees at all in the beginning? Guys are running LN nodes on Raspberry PIs and opening channels with the amount of 0,01 or 0,05 BTC just for testing purposes now, so to start a node and be the part of the network is not a big deal at the moment. Maybe in the future there will be a need for big and reliable nodes to route the transactions with a high amount of BTC, but to maintain a bigger hub will cost real money and this will make the node to charge you higher fees compared to the average (or compared to 0 fees). If they will charge higher fees, the protocol will search for another route where your transaction will arrive with less fees. Or, if it's a really higher amount (not a coffee or a weekend shopping) and no hurry, the good old onchain transaction will be also an option still. So there's nothing with banks and giant nodes but an onion type network that will have real possibilities.

Not sure, if I understand correctly, than you have to have enough BTC in your node to pass the transaction. Which means, there have to be certain amount of money locked in for the node to be useful. Of course, you can open a node with 0.01BTC...And than WHAT? Nothing, you don't have enough money to route any transaction, which is over your pre-funded amount.


Let me be clear here - I'm not for and not against Bitcoin or Lighting network - I'm not invested. I don't like Bitcoin, I don't have Bitcoin, and I'm holding, trading and using everything else, but Bitcoin.

No, wait, actually I do use Bitcoin sometimes on exchanges, to buy a currency, which I can't buy with ETH - I lay my hands on Bitcoin for just about five minutes.

I believe, that Bitcoin is so outdated, that even the Lighting network cannot save it, too late.
BUT.
That does not mean that I am not interested to UNDERSTAND, what is going on, and I value an input of everyone in this conversation.

[TheQuin]

Not sure, if I understand correctly, than you have to have enough BTC in your node to pass the transaction. Which means, there have to be certain amount of money locked in for the node to be useful. Of course, you can open a node with 0.01BTC...And than WHAT? Nothing, you don't have enough money to route any transaction, which is over your pre-funded amount.

The main point of LN is to make small transactions possible. There will be many nodes on the network to choose from so the idea that somehow "the top 15%" will be able to monopolise it is just unjustified scaremongering.

Let me be clear here - I'm not for and not against Bitcoin or Lighting network - I'm not invested. I don't like Bitcoin, I don't have Bitcoin, and I'm holding, trading and using everything else, but Bitcoin.

No, wait, actually I do use Bitcoin sometimes on exchanges, to buy a currency, which I can't buy with ETH - I lay my hands on Bitcoin for just about five minutes.

I believe, that Bitcoin is so outdated, that even the Lighting network cannot save it, too late.
BUT.
That does not mean that I am not interested to UNDERSTAND, what is going on, and I value an input of everyone in this conversation.

If you're really interested then what is really going on is that Bitcoin is moving on to the next stage with layer 2 functionality. Don't get bogged down in the arguments directly about LN, they are largely irrelevant. The point is that adding new technology on top of the existing blockchain is the natural evolution. If LN comes up against issues then solutions will be found or even a better LN 2.0 will come along. There are those that want to stay in the past and throw out all these scare stories about LN to distract from the fact they don't have any solutions to mass adoption themselves.

This is a good analogy https://medium.com/@melik_87377/lightning-network-enables-unicast-transactions-in-bitcoin-lightning-is-bitcoins-tcp-ip-stack-8ec1d42c14f5

[bitart]

Why do you need to be in the top 15% of holders? You can make a node and open channels with any amount you want, there is no lower limit. Again the whole argument is based on misleading you.

Why to be top 15%? Makes no sense for me. Do you think that it will be only the top 15% who can earn on the (really small) transaction fees of the lightning network? If there will be fees at all in the beginning? Guys are running LN nodes on Raspberry PIs and opening channels with the amount of 0,01 or 0,05 BTC just for testing purposes now, so to start a node and be the part of the network is not a big deal at the moment. Maybe in the future there will be a need for big and reliable nodes to route the transactions with a high amount of BTC, but to maintain a bigger hub will cost real money and this will make the node to charge you higher fees compared to the average (or compared to 0 fees). If they will charge higher fees, the protocol will search for another route where your transaction will arrive with less fees. Or, if it's a really higher amount (not a coffee or a weekend shopping) and no hurry, the good old onchain transaction will be also an option still. So there's nothing with banks and giant nodes but an onion type network that will have real possibilities.

Not sure, if I understand correctly, than you have to have enough BTC in your node to pass the transaction. Which means, there have to be certain amount of money locked in for the node to be useful. Of course, you can open a node with 0.01BTC...And than WHAT? Nothing, you don't have enough money to route any transaction, which is over your pre-funded amount.


Let me be clear here - I'm not for and not against Bitcoin or Lighting network - I'm not invested. I don't like Bitcoin, I don't have Bitcoin, and I'm holding, trading and using everything else, but Bitcoin.

No, wait, actually I do use Bitcoin sometimes on exchanges, to buy a currency, which I can't buy with ETH - I lay my hands on Bitcoin for just about five minutes.

I believe, that Bitcoin is so outdated, that even the Lighting network cannot save it, too late.
BUT.
That does not mean that I am not interested to UNDERSTAND, what is going on, and I value an input of everyone in this conversation.

It was just a quick example to show that there's no need to open channels with 1-2 BTC, it's possible to open channels with less, 0.01 or similar for TESTING purposes, which is the current status of the LN on the mainnet. This is just for test the code, to start and receive small transactions, to test the network, and find the possible bugs. Even a small Raspberry PI is enough for this NOW.
But when this whole thing will go live and start to work as expected, there will be a real need for channels to be opened with a lot of BTC if you want to let larger transactions to find your LN hub, or if you want to serve a lot of small transactions (in one way). If you can set up a channel where the transactions are going in both directions, then you will never have to close the channel because of insufficient liquidity. As far as I see now, LN will not be the channel of the high amount transactions but the lot of small transactions, so if someone wants to only participate with smaller channels, it's possible (but we'll see if it worths it on the long run to open a channel with really small amount).

[brickafterbrickwalldpt]

What is the point of spreading such a huge amount of FUD? People who support Bitcoin Cash are trying to convince others that both SegWit and Lightning Network are huge threats to the Bitcoin independence. That is obviously unreasonable. Nobody is forced to use Lightning Network. In fact, it can be only use for payments up to somewhere around 0.04 BTC. You can setup your own LN node, nobody forces you to use a specific one. I don't see any connection to the current banking system.