Lightning Network = centralization

[sjefdeklerk]

So like I predicted many times before, Lightning network equals centralization, as we can now see: https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/
There are almost no 'client-to-client' channels like the enthusiasts predicted, but it's mainly 'client-to-hub'.
It's so ironic, people wanted BTC for decentralization and then invent "Lightning Network" and it's becoming centralized again around big 'banks'.

[1715030570]

1715030570

[1715030570]

1715030570

[1715030570]

1715030570

[1715030570]

1715030570

[1715030570]

1715030570

[1Referee]

You again? You are aware of the fact that people aren't forced to use LN? Also, you can't just write off something that hasn't even had the chance to properly deploy itself, because the far majority of the people don't even know how to set up a node, open channels, etc. You are only out to discredit something (LN in this case), and I don't know what for. If you don't like it, then don't use it.

It's like you are making fun of a baby because it can't walk or talk yet, you are just pathetic.

[sjefdeklerk]

You again? You are aware of the fact that people aren't forced to use LN? Also, you can't just write off something that hasn't even had the chance to properly deploy itself, because the far majority of the people don't even know how to set up a node, open channels, etc. You are only out to discredit something (LN in this case), and I don't know what for. If you don't like it, then don't use it.

It's like you are making fun of a baby because it can't walk or talk yet, you are just pathetic.

Haha you're delusional. You see a car in front of you and insist it's a bicycle. I understand though, you're losing tons of money because of your lousy investment decisions, I would get grumpy too.

Either way, it's not all bad, in fact, I think this is actually the ONLY way that LN has a chance to survive. Much of the reasons I gave that LN would fail (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2792933.0) are not (so) valid anymore in a centralized model. Still, I wonder how succesful it can be, since a lot of people like bitcoin for decentralization. If it's going to revolve around a few big banks again, I wonder how many people would still like it.

[sjefdeklerk]

In fact, I wonder what are the differences between a centralized Lightning network and bankmodel that uses blockchain (like Ripple) to process interbank transactions?

pro's centralized LN:
* No risk of default of the bank AT ALL. If your hub defaults for some reason, that doesn't mean you lose your money like with traditional banks. The money stays yours.
* No monthly/yearly fixed fees
* You could open a direct channel with anyone you'd like, for example with Amazon, so you have really 0 routing fees.
* Bitcoin doesn't have any devaluation/inflation baked into its core, like most currencies have where central banks follow an inflation strategy.

pro's banking system + interbank blockchain:
* You get interest, you're not putting your money away against 0 interest
* No routing fees AT ALL. Although currently banks charge for international payments, I'm not sure how that would be when they'd switch to Ripple for example.
* You have free insurance for up to $100.000 (or more) in most countries against default, supplied by your government.
* Free insurance against getting hacked
* In case you make an error, the bank simply can undo the transaction, your money won't be gone like in the above.
* Support from your bank, someone you can call in case of a problem.
* access to ATM's to quickly convert into paper money.
* No fees when you deposit into your account, like you'd have when you'd deposit into your LN channel, where you'd pay on-chain fees, which could be really steep.
* You have 100% guarantee you can pay anyone you like who has a bank account. Although in a centralized LN this will also be very likely (but not 100%).
* Less volatility of your currency than bitcoin (well at least in 99.9% of the countries)
* You can pay people in countries like China, Morocco, Ecuador, etc, who have banned bitcoin.
* Currently WAY more users have a bank account than a bitcoin wallet. Theoretically this could change of course some day in the future but for now it's a huge advantage.
* No risk that quantum computing developments will render your bitcoins worthless at some point in the future.
* No risk that some other crypto will become more popular, decreasing your current crypto's value.

Did I miss anything?

[btc1]

And are you surprised about this? It is full of people saying that the LN is centralized because the "nodes" are connected.

Came on, LN is just a perfect thing, only that we need to download and investigate a lot of stuff before jumping to the pool.

I prefer bitcoins rather than banks, do you?

You again? You are aware of the fact that people aren't forced to use LN? Also, you can't just write off something that hasn't even had the chance to properly deploy itself, because the far majority of the people don't even know how to set up a node, open channels, etc. You are only out to discredit something (LN in this case), and I don't know what for. If you don't like it, then don't use it.
It's like you are making fun of a baby because it can't walk or talk yet, you are just pathetic.

[sjefdeklerk]

I prefer bitcoins rather than banks, do you?

Well see my post above. If I missed a pro of bitcoin, let me know and I'll add it. But when I sum it up like this it seems to me that banks+blockchain is the clear winner.

[cryptokwuk]

What did you expect?
Ever since Blockstream hijacked the Bitcoin project its goal has been to turn Bitcoin into a financial control and surveilance tool for corporate banksters and governments/
It's no secret Blockstream has deep ties to the corporate and bankster world.

[Apraksin]

Still, I wonder how succesful it can be, since a lot of people like bitcoin for decentralization. If it's going to revolve around a few big banks again, I wonder how many people would still like it.

Libertarian programmer nerd says: This is not twue Bitcoin!

Regular Joe says: I don't care WTF it is, just make it work!

[fabiorem]

Nobody cares. Nobody gives a fuck. Nothing is more centralized than the fiat system.

If we had decentralized P2P exchanges already, with the mining cost coded as a bottom in it, you would not be here spamming those threads.

[buwaytress]

Ok. So you have points. At least you seem to provide slightly better evidenced claims than most, though your naunces are a consequence of stage of adoption. When Satoshi was the only one mining Bitcoin, I imagine you might have been pointing out the flaws of the dream of p2p txs with a vast army of nodes... Where a handful of programmers would be the only ones new adopters would trust.

Are you working on an alternative or are you a BCasher or..?

[sjefdeklerk]

Nobody cares. Nobody gives a fuck.

Hmm that's interesting. I remember all the fanfare and the trumpets when bitcoin got prime time attention because it was decentralized! Now it's getting centralized again and "nobody cares". I understand though, you only care about the quotes of your investment going up, fair enough.

[markj113]

Nobody cares. Nobody gives a fuck. Nothing is more centralized than the fiat system.

If we had decentralized P2P exchanges already, with the mining cost coded as a bottom in it, you would not be here spamming those threads.

I would say the fiat system is considerably more decentralized than bitcoin.

1000 people control 40% of all bitcoin.  
97% of all bitcoins are held by 4% of addresses.

You cant say the same for cash.

[sjefdeklerk]

Nobody cares. Nobody gives a fuck. Nothing is more centralized than the fiat system.

If we had decentralized P2P exchanges already, with the mining cost coded as a bottom in it, you would not be here spamming those threads.

I would say the fiat system is considerably more decentralized than bitcoin.

1000 people control 40% of all bitcoin.  
97% of all bitcoins are held by 4% of addresses.

You cant say the same for cash.

Very good point. Besides that I think in the end LN will be even MUCH more centralized. I mean where do you have your bank account currently? Most likely at the local bank of your country. But LN won't be bound by countries, you'll just have an 'account' (wallet) at the biggest hub world wide. The few biggest hub in the world will have 99% of the transactions going on. It almost can't be more centralized than that!

[BrewMaster]

There are almost no 'client-to-client' channels like the enthusiasts predicted, but it's mainly 'client-to-hub'.

nobody i forcing you to use a node that you think is a hub. go through another route. and so what if it is a hub? it doesn't change a thing. it is still processing transactions and won't know who sent it and who is receiving it. the only thing that that hub is going to know is that it is supposed to "process" this transaction and it  doesn't belong to it.
i don't see anything centralized here!

[sjefdeklerk]

i don't see anything centralized here!

There is. Centralization = power. What if THE central hub doesn't want your transaction? You're f*cked. Sure, you could open channels with all of your contacts but that's a huge amount of money you'd have to wire into the system + all other disadvantages. And what if THE hub goes down? The more centralized it is the more problems this brings for the system and the economy.

[BrewMaster]

What if THE central hub doesn't want your transaction?

you simply an automatically choose another LN node and your transaction will reach its destination!

let me give you some visual aid of a simple example route including one "scary hub" in the middle!






the big scary "hub" didn't want your transaction so you don't use the "hub" you go another route



3 different routes with 3 different colors. in practice it is automatic and much complicated than this.

[sjefdeklerk]

let me give you some visual aid of a simple example route including one "scary hub" in the middle!

Ok, now let's say you're AY_Yidliz and you want to pay Maca Macarena and Ln2.binance rejects, then what? All you can do is open a channel with her, pay the on chain fee, wire money into the channel and then pay her.

[BrewMaster]

let me give you some visual aid of a simple example route including one "scary hub" in the middle!

Ok, now let's say you're AY_Yidliz and you want to pay Maca Macarena and Ln2.binance rejects, then what? All you can do is open a channel with her, pay the on chain fee, wire money into the channel and then pay her.

you already have the funds in your own channel and you don't have to make another on chain transaction. you just have to connect to the other LN node.

[sjefdeklerk]

you already have the funds in your own channel and you don't have to make another on chain transaction. you just have to connect to the other LN node.

? Which LN node? There's no route to her, so you need to open one and thus pay the on chain transaction fee.

[STT]

free insurance

You are a bigger dreamer then us if you believe in free.  Theres a cost and a risk in there somewhere, every insurance policy has an underwriter and a cost to its confirmation of security.

I dont see why Lightning Network is diverting my use of a wallet, is it displacing transactions in every block so I can no longer use a route of my choosing.   Why would more paths to transact be a negative.   If it fails in some way then that is a loss on those users, just like any concept or website use of bitcoin can prove to be incorrect.   So long as its not damaging the underlying protocol I dont see the problem regardless of its success or failure, the risk is personal to those operators.