[2018-04-07] Lightning Network is Actually an ‘Altcoin,’ Edge CEO Says

[tyz]

Lightning Network is Actually an ‘Altcoin,’ Edge CEO Says
According to Edge, a multi-asset blockchain wallet and security platform, Lightning Network — a second-layer payment protocol operating on top of Bitcoin’s blockchain and enabling instantaneous transactions — isn’t actually that. Rather, from the company’s point of view, the Lightning Network is an altcoin.
http://bitcoinist.com/lightning-network-actually-altcoin-edge-ceo-says/

[DooMAD]

Only in the furthest abstract and philosophical sense, perhaps.  But even then, it's still a stretch.  I'd even go so far as to disagree with describing Lightning purely as a "second layer" when it's clearly more than that.  In biology, an extracellular matrix will bind cells together and provide structural support to the surrounding cells.  In crypto, Lightning is the "extrachainullar matrix" (trademark pending?   ), performing the same role with surrounding blockchains.  It isn't just another layer, it's the gateway to all layers.  The embryonic commencement of crypto-morphogenesis; The start of something infinitely larger.

[hatshepsut93]

I guess this company sees Lightning Network as a threat to altcoin industry, because calling LN an altcoin is a huge lie - Lightning transactions are real Bitcoin transaction, they are just not being broadcasted until you decide to close a channel. This is so much different from altcoins that have their own blockchains, for example you can't simply fork Lightning Network, and it doesn't even have any tokens - all coins are Bitcoins.

[odolvlobo]

Paul Puey is a great guy, but I'm not sure what he is getting at. He's probably making some obscure point that the article is not explaining well.

[Argoo]

Well, what does this statement change from a practical point of view? Special signs that the lightning network is one of the altcoyins is not available. In any case, a network of lightning - this is something unusual. The main thing is that it should be useful to us after the implementation of bitcoin and helped him to quickly carry out transactions with minimum commission fees.

[d5000]

His point is actually that Lightning coins are "pegged altcoins", so they are using the same currency unit, but with completely different rules.

I tend to disagree. The connection between the LN rules and the Bitcoin rules is too tight for them to be called distinct networks or "coins".

We fortunately already know some pegged "altcoins" among the current cryptocurrencies, so we can draw some comparisons. One of them is BitBTC from the BitShares "smartcoin" family. It is pegged to Bitcoin but works on a completely different blockchain, with completely different consensus rules. A BitBTC transaction cannot be transformed directly into a Bitcoin transaction. To be interchanged, BitBTC and Bitcoin need an intermediary, for example, a centralized exchange or an "atomic cross chain transfer" method.

In the case of Lightning, there is a much tighter connection between "Lightning transactions" and "Bitcoin transactions". As hatshepsut93 correctly wrote, LN transactions are Bitcoin transactions that are not broadcasted, but that can be directly transformed into Bitcoin transactions as they use the same key-pairs. So every Lightning user can become automatically a Bitcoin user.

Not even Bitcoin Cash (as a example for fork-altcoins) is so tightly integrated with Bitcoin as LN is: While BCH and BTC use the same key-pairs, the balances (more correctly: the UTXO set) are different. In Lightning, it's possible that the balance of an user temporarily diverges from his Bitcoin on-chain balance, but as soon as the channel is closed, the balances are equal again.

The only "altcoins" that can be loosely compared to LN "coins" are two-way-pegged sidechains, which still don't exist as a decentralized technology. I wouldn't call them "altcoins" however but "extensions" or "layers", just like LN.

[FrueGreads]

I'm definitely not an expert here, but I would say his point is simply not important and I don't see why I would care if LN, from either a technical or philosophical perspective, is an altcoin. I don't think it is, since it's tied to bitcoin, and like we all know, it's just a second layer "addition" to BTC. Even though you can make a lot of transaction of chain, everything will be eventually registered in the blockchain so we are still using bitcoin from my point of view.

His argument seems to be tied to Roger Ver argument, saying that bitcoin cash is the true bitcoin because it's more closed to Satoshi's original concept. Things evolve, and I don't see a problem with that. I mean, how close is a PC or a cell phone, from their first creations? They evolved and I think we are quite pleased with the way things turned out. I guess the same thing is happening with bitcoin, but it's still bitcoin.

[TYPEcoin]

Everybody just talking about Lighting network , but when we will see really good 100% working lighting network with this 100% fast and free payments ?

[Carlton Banks]

The only "altcoins" that can be loosely compared to LN "coins" are two-way-pegged sidechains, which still don't exist as a decentralized technology. I wouldn't call them "altcoins" however but "extensions" or "layers", just like LN.

I would call them different cryptocurrencies to Bitcoin. I suspect I won't be alone


Calling them "Bitcoin layers" is wrong. Different blockchains are by definition using different rules, and employing different miners with different incentives. Suggesting that different blockchains are somehow layers of Bitcoin is dangerously wrong.

[TraderTimm]

Everybody just talking about Lighting network , but when we will see really good 100% working lighting network with this 100% fast and free payments ?

Its already on mainnet -- someone sent a ONE SATOSHI transaction to someone for fucksake. That not cheap enough for you? lololol

But seriously, this fucking narrative of "Lightning is an alt coin" was initiated by a few grumpy assholes who don't like the fact their narrative of "Bitcoin is too expensive" is falling apart. I've heard it from Tiffany Hayden, a Ripple shill, and from the Roger Ver camp.

Its technically false, but like most claims coming from these twats, they try to latch on to emotionally based reasons versus fact-based ones to sway their user-base.

Just another volley in the wars between Bitcoin and shitcoins/shitforks.

[squatter]

His point is actually that Lightning coins are "pegged altcoins", so they are using the same currency unit, but with completely different rules.

I tend to disagree. The connection between the LN rules and the Bitcoin rules is too tight for them to be called distinct networks or "coins".

It's all semantics. It's not inaccurate to refer to tokens used on LN as altcoins. If we're being technical, obviously LN hash preimages =/= bitcoins. Rather, they are substitutes for bitcoins. In a literal sense, that's what altcoins are -- alternatives for bitcoins. You can close a channel and push a transaction to the blockchain, but within channels, the "currency" being transacted is not BTC. They are hash preimages.

The only "altcoins" that can be loosely compared to LN "coins" are two-way-pegged sidechains, which still don't exist as a decentralized technology. I wouldn't call them "altcoins" however but "extensions" or "layers", just like LN.

A sidechain with distinct consensus rules and native tokens is very obviously an altcoin. You can make a blockchain interoperable with Bitcoin. That doesn't make it Bitcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

It's not inaccurate to refer to tokens used on LN as altcoins. If we're being technical, obviously LN hash preimages =/= bitcoins. Rather, they are substitutes for bitcoins. In a literal sense, that's what altcoins are -- alternatives for bitcoins. You can close a channel and push a transaction to the blockchain, but within channels, the "currency" being transacted is not BTC. They are hash preimages.

Hash pre-images for BTC denominated transactions, that are valid if redeemed on the Bitcoin blockchain?

It's all semantics.

You got that part right.

[squatter]

It's not inaccurate to refer to tokens used on LN as altcoins. If we're being technical, obviously LN hash preimages =/= bitcoins. Rather, they are substitutes for bitcoins. In a literal sense, that's what altcoins are -- alternatives for bitcoins. You can close a channel and push a transaction to the blockchain, but within channels, the "currency" being transacted is not BTC. They are hash preimages.

Hash pre-images for BTC denominated transactions, that are valid if redeemed on the Bitcoin blockchain?

So, under some conditions, your funds can be unlocked on the Bitcoin blockchain. This is not so unlike pegged sidechain tokens unlocking BTC. Maybe there's an extra step involved there, but my point is you're using non-BTC tokens on a different protocol with different consensus rules.

Just being technical.

It's all semantics.

You got that part right.

None of this should matter. But if people are calling sidechains "Layer 2" and assuming that means "part of Bitcoin" then maybe the distinctions are worth making.

[d5000]

The only "altcoins" that can be loosely compared to LN "coins" are two-way-pegged sidechains, which still don't exist as a decentralized technology. I wouldn't call them "altcoins" however but "extensions" or "layers", just like LN.

I would call them different cryptocurrencies to Bitcoin. I suspect I won't be alone

Calling them "Bitcoin layers" is wrong. Different blockchains are by definition using different rules, and employing different miners with different incentives. Suggesting that different blockchains are somehow layers of Bitcoin is dangerously wrong.

This is a valid stance, I think. But "decentralized two-way-pegged sidechains" have one thing in common with "LN coins": If there is a working automatic two-way-peg, then there is an automatic method without intermediary (with the exception of miners, in the case of "Drivechains" miners that merge-mine both chains) that can convert a Bitcoin transaction into a sidechain transaction and vice-versa.

This is valid only for sidechains like those envisioned by Paul Sztorc in his "Drivechain" concept, not for "federated" sidechains like Blockstream's Elements or Rootstock because in this case there is a (pretty centralized) intermediary. It also isn't valid for coins with atomic cross-chain swap compatibility with BTC because in this case we have two intermediaries that accept a contract between them.

So it isn't totally clear where the "layer zone" ends and the "altcoin zone" begins.

However, the stance that LN coins and sidechain coins are "different things" than "BTC on-chain coins" also has some points in favour. For example, it's totally legit (and will very likely happen) that some would accept Bitcoin on-chain TX and not LN or sidechain "coins"; so 1 lBTC or 1 sBTC (or how you would call them) isn't exactly the same (and can even worth a little bit less) than 1 (on-chain) BTC. This distinction, however, is similar to the distinction between cash and other payment methods such as credit cards, so I wouldn't call them "different currencies" but only "different payment methods".

[Slugmonkey]

Ummm... and how would that be? To be an alternative coin shouldn't the coin be traded on some exchanges or have a market capital or maybe have an ICO/Airdrop/Bounty coming up. This just seems like a marketing stunt from the CEO of Edge. Lightening network is just a catalyst to make the transactions on bitcoin blockchain faster and cheaper. Just an extra layer on it like symbiosis.