Is the Lightning Network centralized?

[Zin-Zang]

Some say that the Lightning Network is centralized, but from my point of view, it's still a decentralized solution to scale Bitcoin as anyone would be able to run a Lightning node at will. The huge advantages that it provides for Bitcoin such as dirt-cheap fees, and instant transactions would be too hard to ignore to implement in the future.

However, if the Lightning Network turns out to become a centralized solution for Bitcoin (like many claims it will), then it would be doomed as only those with a lot of wealth and power would be able to participate in this ecosystem.

What are your thoughts about this? Is Lightning really centralized? Or Decentralized?

The Lightning Network will probably have top-notch privacy features. It will be much more anonymous than ordinary Bitcoin transactions.
Some businesses will run cheap Lightning Nodes to collect and sell data. Lightning users can either use these low-cost lightning nodes,or, use higher-cost, more privacy oriented payment channels.If the network is built by an organisation my take is it will be centralised

All Lightning nodes in the US will be forced to register as banks, thinking that they will be allowed to run a private bank without adhering to the AML ,
shows either a innocence or a stupidity on how things in the US work.

The US already forces compliance from foreign banks , expect the same to happen to any node that allows a US IP to connect.
LN records will be made available to all governments that request it or they will be shut down and their operators in jail.
And the reason only the rich will be able to run LN hubs is they will be the only ones able to afford a banking license.

Time to grow up people, the Bankers are taking over Bitcoin/LN and you can't run it out of your Mom's basement anymore.
You want decentralization & freedom of a coin not controlled by a banking cartel, you better start looking into alts.


 

[1713520826]

1713520826

[1713520826]

1713520826

[1713520826]

1713520826

[1713520826]

1713520826

[1713520826]

1713520826

[figmentofmyass]

in my opinion the key is in "who can run a lightning node/hub?" as long as it is anybody who wants (which is the case and now there is incentive to run a node) then i don't see any kind of centralization in this.

what's the incentive? how much can you expect to make in fees? i guess it matters how well-connected your node is. you have to weigh that incentive against the risk of keeping your private keys online too.

for years people have been running bitcoin nodes but some of them have been complaining that there should be an incentive for it. the fees can be that incentive they were looking for. they may not be a lot but it is still viable. the thing is people have never been getting paid before and they were running nodes but now they have that perk.

yeah i get that. i'm just wondering if the fee incentive to run LN nodes is substantial enough to encourage a widely distributed network (as opposed to hub-and-spoke).

this question is sort of analogous to that of base layer node centralization. except i've always felt that trustlessly validating payments was incentive enough to run a bitcoin full node.

here, the question is more about whether people will bother becoming highly interconnected vs. just opening a channel with major nodes like exchanges or bitpay.

Some say that the Lightning Network is centralized, but from my point of view, it's still a decentralized solution to scale Bitcoin as anyone would be able to run a Lightning node at will. The huge advantages that it provides for Bitcoin such as dirt-cheap fees, and instant transactions would be too hard to ignore to implement in the future.

However, if the Lightning Network turns out to become a centralized solution for Bitcoin (like many claims it will), then it would be doomed as only those with a lot of wealth and power would be able to participate in this ecosystem.

What are your thoughts about this? Is Lightning really centralized? Or Decentralized?

The Lightning Network will probably have top-notch privacy features. It will be much more anonymous than ordinary Bitcoin transactions.
Some businesses will run cheap Lightning Nodes to collect and sell data. Lightning users can either use these low-cost lightning nodes,or, use higher-cost, more privacy oriented payment channels.If the network is built by an organisation my take is it will be centralised

All Lightning nodes in the US will be forced to register as banks, thinking that they will be allowed to run a private bank without adhering to the AML ,
shows either a innocence or a stupidity on how things in the US work.

that seems doubtful. routing transactions doesn't equate to being a party to them. LN pre-images are just bitcoin transactions that aren't published to the blockchain. you realize that bitcoin nodes propagate many thousands of transactions across the network every day, right? if bitcoin nodes aren't financial institutions, how are LN nodes?

[sate_padang]

It is true that concentration is very dangerous and I think it is not centralized but decentralized, and it will be better for the future.

[Zin-Zang]

in my opinion the key is in "who can run a lightning node/hub?" as long as it is anybody who wants (which is the case and now there is incentive to run a node) then i don't see any kind of centralization in this.

what's the incentive? how much can you expect to make in fees? i guess it matters how well-connected your node is. you have to weigh that incentive against the risk of keeping your private keys online too.

for years people have been running bitcoin nodes but some of them have been complaining that there should be an incentive for it. the fees can be that incentive they were looking for. they may not be a lot but it is still viable. the thing is people have never been getting paid before and they were running nodes but now they have that perk.

yeah i get that. i'm just wondering if the fee incentive to run LN nodes is substantial enough to encourage a widely distributed network (as opposed to hub-and-spoke).

this question is sort of analogous to that of base layer node centralization. except i've always felt that trustlessly validating payments was incentive enough to run a bitcoin full node.

here, the question is more about whether people will bother becoming highly interconnected vs. just opening a channel with major nodes like exchanges or bitpay.

Some say that the Lightning Network is centralized, but from my point of view, it's still a decentralized solution to scale Bitcoin as anyone would be able to run a Lightning node at will. The huge advantages that it provides for Bitcoin such as dirt-cheap fees, and instant transactions would be too hard to ignore to implement in the future.

However, if the Lightning Network turns out to become a centralized solution for Bitcoin (like many claims it will), then it would be doomed as only those with a lot of wealth and power would be able to participate in this ecosystem.

What are your thoughts about this? Is Lightning really centralized? Or Decentralized?

The Lightning Network will probably have top-notch privacy features. It will be much more anonymous than ordinary Bitcoin transactions.
Some businesses will run cheap Lightning Nodes to collect and sell data. Lightning users can either use these low-cost lightning nodes,or, use higher-cost, more privacy oriented payment channels.If the network is built by an organisation my take is it will be centralised

All Lightning nodes in the US will be forced to register as banks, thinking that they will be allowed to run a private bank without adhering to the AML ,
shows either a innocence or a stupidity on how things in the US work.

that seems doubtful. routing transactions doesn't equate to being a party to them. LN pre-images are just bitcoin transactions that aren't published to the blockchain. you realize that bitcoin nodes propagate many thousands of transactions across the network every day, right? if bitcoin nodes aren't financial institutions, how are LN nodes?

People that run Bitcoin Nodes are routing transactions , they are not creating their own separate note for the transactions.

However people that run LN Hubs
are holding/locking bitcoins and using their own hub created LN Notes to make transactions.

In the old days
Banks
hold your gold (now worthless fiat) , and use their own created Bank notes (Checks) to make transactions.

Both hold something of value and then make their own notes to make transactions.

LN Hub is by definition a bank as it was designed to be.  

Banks & LN
Create their own notes for transactions
Both Charge Fees & Penalties
Both can seize control over the held asset under certain conditions
Both can refuse payment to 3rd parties if they so choose.

Bitcoin Full Nodes
Do not create their own notes
Can Not Charge Fees or Penalties
Can Not seize control over any assets
Can Not refuse payment to 3rd parties for any reason.

See the Difference.  
 
** Bank Checks/Notes are nothing more than a promise by a bank that ownership of the underlying asset (Fiat) will be granted to the payee upon request.  **
** LN Hub transactions are nothing more than a promise by the hub that ownership of the underlying asset (BTC) will be granted to the payee upon request.**
LN=Banks

[figmentofmyass]

All Lightning nodes in the US will be forced to register as banks, thinking that they will be allowed to run a private bank without adhering to the AML ,
shows either a innocence or a stupidity on how things in the US work.

that seems doubtful. routing transactions doesn't equate to being a party to them. LN pre-images are just bitcoin transactions that aren't published to the blockchain. you realize that bitcoin nodes propagate many thousands of transactions across the network every day, right? if bitcoin nodes aren't financial institutions, how are LN nodes?

People that run Bitcoin Nodes are routing transactions , they are not creating their own separate note for the transactions.

However people that run LN Hubs
are holding/locking bitcoins and using their own hub created LN Notes to make transactions.

In the old days
Banks
hold your gold (now worthless fiat) , and use their own created Bank notes (Checks) to make transactions.

Both hold something of value and then make their own notes to make transactions.

LN Hub is by definition a bank as it was designed to be.

no, that's inaccurate. intermediaries on LN are not creating new transactions. they are not issuing "notes" or "checks" or anything like that. they are only routing transactions, like bitcoin nodes. the only difference is they are routing transactions via their established channels rather than propagating them to any and all connected nodes.

Banks & LN
Create their own notes for transactions
Both Charge Fees & Penalties
Both can seize control over the held asset under certain conditions
Both can refuse payment to 3rd parties if they so choose.

as pointed out, there are no "bank notes" in LN. there is no trust involved.

miners charge fees on the bitcoin network too. so what? the only "penalties" are if you're dishonest and try to broadcast a stale channel state to the blockchain. if someone can prove that you just tried to steal their coins, yes you can be penalized.

no one can seize control over the collateral unless:

• your private keys get compromised (same as bitcoin)
• you don't monitor channel states and thus permit others to steal your coins
• you broadcast a stale channel state attempting to steal others coins

how will LN intermediaries know which transactions to censor? and you know bitcoin miners can censor transactions too, right?

** LN Hub transactions are nothing more than a promise by the hub that ownership of the underlying asset (BTC) will be granted to the payee upon request.**

no. all LN collateral is cryptographically secured. a channel participant can close the channel and broadcast the last state to the blockchain. as long as bitcoin miners will confirm the resulting transaction, the funds will be released. if you are saying bitcoin miners won't confirm the transaction, your gripe is with bitcoin, not LN.

[Zin-Zang]

All Lightning nodes in the US will be forced to register as banks, thinking that they will be allowed to run a private bank without adhering to the AML ,
shows either a innocence or a stupidity on how things in the US work.

that seems doubtful. routing transactions doesn't equate to being a party to them. LN pre-images are just bitcoin transactions that aren't published to the blockchain. you realize that bitcoin nodes propagate many thousands of transactions across the network every day, right? if bitcoin nodes aren't financial institutions, how are LN nodes?

People that run Bitcoin Nodes are routing transactions , they are not creating their own separate note for the transactions.

However people that run LN Hubs
are holding/locking bitcoins and using their own hub created LN Notes to make transactions.

In the old days
Banks
hold your gold (now worthless fiat) , and use their own created Bank notes (Checks) to make transactions.

Both hold something of value and then make their own notes to make transactions.

LN Hub is by definition a bank as it was designed to be.

no, that's inaccurate. intermediaries on LN are not creating new transactions. they are not issuing "notes" or "checks" or anything like that. they are only routing transactions, like bitcoin nodes. the only difference is they are routing transactions via their established channels rather than propagating them to any and all connected nodes.

It is a Promise to Pay , It is the Same, No matter what your wishes.

Banks & LN
Create their own notes for transactions
Both Charge Fees & Penalties
Both can seize control over the held asset under certain conditions
Both can refuse payment to 3rd parties if they so choose.

as pointed out, there are no "bank notes" in LN. there is no trust involved.

miners charge fees on the bitcoin network too. so what? the only "penalties" are if you're dishonest and try to broadcast a stale channel state to the blockchain. if someone can prove that you just tried to steal their coins, yes you can be penalized.

no one can seize control over the collateral unless:

• your private keys get compromised (same as bitcoin)
• you don't monitor channel states and thus permit others to steal your coins
• you broadcast a stale channel state attempting to steal others coins

how will LN intermediaries know which transactions to censor? and you know bitcoin miners can censor transactions too, right?

They will receive a ban list, which can include IPs or address or specific LN Hubs.
Bitcoin Miners can only block transactions from being included in the blockchain and that takes collusion of over 51%, they can not charge penalties and they can not seize the asset like a Bank/LN can.  It only takes a few LN hubs to censor the entire LN Network since it is many times more Centralized than the BTC Network.

** LN Hub transactions are nothing more than a promise by the hub that ownership of the underlying asset (BTC) will be granted to the payee upon request.**

no. all LN collateral is cryptographically secured. a channel participant can close the channel and broadcast the last state to the blockchain. as long as bitcoin miners will confirm the resulting transaction, the funds will be released. if you are saying bitcoin miners won't confirm the transaction, your gripe is with bitcoin, not LN.

Now you're just being foolish, when a person requests a channel to be closed, that is equal to the underlying asset (BTC) will be granted to the payee upon request .

You can say no , all you want the fact is the US Gov has LN hubs by the banking license balls whenever they feel like it.
Ignore this at your own risk of jail time.

Tell you what ,
you start an LN Hub and post your IP , I will forward that info on to https://www2.occ.gov/ (Comptroller of the Currency US Treasury Department)
Then we can all see if you get away with it or get sent to jail for it.  

[Austin Alexis]

Some say that the Lightning Network is centralized, but from my point of view, it's still a decentralized solution to scale Bitcoin as anyone would be able to run a Lightning node at will. The huge advantages that it provides for Bitcoin such as dirt-cheap fees, and instant transactions would be too hard to ignore to implement in the future.

However, if the Lightning Network turns out to become a centralized solution for Bitcoin (like many claims it will), then it would be doomed as only those with a lot of wealth and power would be able to participate in this ecosystem.

What are your thoughts about this? Is Lightning really centralized? Or Decentralized?

You could maybe argue that some decentralisation may have been sacrificed in order to scale but I think it still maintains enough decentralisation to remain relevant and survive. As a second layer solution I think it is the best we can come up with at the moment and I can see a future where you will need as little as a smart phone to run a lightning node, in a few years of course so over time it will become allot more decentralised. Like any protocol I suppose

[franky1]

People that run Bitcoin Nodes are routing transactions , they are not creating their own separate note for the transactions.
However people that run LN Hubs
are holding/locking bitcoins and using their own hub created LN Notes to make transactions.
Both hold something of value and then make their own notes to make transactions.
LN Hub is by definition a bank as it was designed to be.

no, that's inaccurate. intermediaries on LN are not creating new transactions. they are not issuing "notes" or "checks" or anything like that. they are only routing transactions, like bitcoin nodes. the only difference is they are routing transactions via their established channels rather than propagating them to any and all connected nodes.

actually zin-zang is kinda accurate

for instance
a paypal dollar is not the exact same as a bank account dollar.
you cant pay anyone thats not a paypal accepting merchant with a paypal dollar

much like you cannot pay someone not using LN with an LN time locked multisig

it has to be authorised and broadcast into the normal 'community'(national banking) system and fully settled before a customer can then pay a merchant outside of paypal.

same as a american express dollar is not the same as a dollar bank note..
many amrican express usrs have to find an ATM get their paymnt authorised to get bank notes to then pay a bill with a merchant that does not accept american express

so if we were to say bitcoin was a decentralised "be your own bank" then LN is a centralised paypal2.0 network
.. but thats just going an extra layer deep into the anaology of analogies

so to keep it simple without multitudes of analogies inside of analogies

in my view
LN is a banking network like swift(US) or 'fasterpayment(UK)
a hub(hundred to thousands of channels) is a bank branch..
a user(node with just 1-3 accounts) only using it to spend is a bank customer
though it appars like a traditional bitcoin transaction. the locks and new features of 2014+
means that while inside the LN network. a tx cannot be handled by the blockchain (the locks)

anyway

the other parts about withholding funds (CLTV)
reversing/punishing users with chargebacks(revocation keys/CSV)
fee's for service
requiring authorisation
are all things that banks do. which is not what traditional bitcoin does

LN is the banking network for a currency that used to be 100% decentralised


the problem with trying to compare crypto to fiat in analogies of banking is that the fiat banking is a farse/scam.

take credit unions vs banks
credit unions do not create credit out of no where. they actually do use other account holders funds to give to others for loans
banks do not actually use other account holders funds to give others loans. they actually do create credit out of nowhere

which is where the banks have been for decades been lying to people about how FIAT and banking works, which is part of why satoshi dsigned bitcoin. to get away from banks/places that people have to store funds and require second partys authorisation.

yet LN it bringing it full circle back to being like the farse of banking(reality of credit union)

[Abiky]

I believe Adam Back said that increasing the block size is already an absolute for the future of the network. But what Bitcoin Core will not do is to increase the block size to satisfy some group's political agenda.

Unfortunately, the Core team is what has kept Bitcoin back from scaling into a full-fledged cryptocurrency. Even if the Lightning Network aims to solve scalability issues, it's not the permanent solution. A block size increase would be mandatory to realize the full potential of the Lightning Network. As such, the bigger the block size, the greater the Lightning Network would perform, but too much block size would further centralize the cryptocurrency.

A safe bet would be to increase the block size 2x every 4-5 years to maintain the coin as decentralized as possible. Since Moore's law states that storage costs would increase over time and prices would reduce by then, it shouldn’t be an issue if Bitcoin's block size becomes greater in the future.

Nevertheless, we'll see what happens once the Lightning Network becomes active and widely used in the mainstream world.

Everything is ok so far with Lightning Nodes surpassing Bitcoin Cash nodes in number. Hahaha.

That's certainly true, mate. Bitcoin Cash will become extremely centralized as it increases its block size to 32mb on May 15th. This will allow less nodes to become available on the network, as storage and bandwidth costs will increase. The blockchain will increase up to 32x than Bitcoin Core. Therefore, people would prefer to run Lightning nodes and Core nodes as costs will be cheaper in the long run.

Before we know it, nobody would want to run a Bitcoin Cash node as it'll be very expensive to do so. On the other hand, Bitcoin Core and Lightning nodes will be highly accessible allowing anyone to join the network without spending a lot of money. In the end, Bitcoin with its Lightning Network scalability solution, would prevail over most cryptocurrencies we know and love today.

[Zin-Zang]

That's certainly true, mate. Bitcoin Cash will become extremely centralized as it increases its block size to 32mb on May 15th. This will allow less nodes to become available on the network, as storage and bandwidth costs will increase. The blockchain will increase up to 32x than Bitcoin Core. Therefore, people would prefer to run Lightning nodes and Core nodes as costs will be cheaper in the long run.

Before we know it, nobody would want to run a Bitcoin Cash node as it'll be very expensive to do so. On the other hand, Bitcoin Core and Lightning nodes will be highly accessible allowing anyone to join the network without spending a lot of money. In the end, Bitcoin with its Lightning Network scalability solution, would prevail over most cryptocurrencies we know and love today.

There seems to be some confusion about their block size increase.
They are increasing the Potential of a block to be 32mb, not that every block will always be 32 MB.
In Fact, they have only rarely used the 8mb blocks since they began, only when someone tried to spam transaction them , and they wipe it out in 1 block.

https://cash.coin.dance/blocks

The Bitcoin (BTC) chain has grown 32.77GB more than the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.

It is currently 6.7% more profitable to mine on the Bitcoin (BTC) chain.?

It is currently 21.52x more expensive to transact on the Bitcoin (BTC) network in USD.

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.

Considering a Bitcoin Cash node only has to run a full node to help the network , and that a Bitcoin Core Node and a LN Hub would be required for a stable LN network, it may turn out core full node and LN hub data & definitely bandwidth requirements would exceed anything needed by just running a simple Bitcoin Cash Node.  
But Time will tell on that speculation.
* The Bandwidth requirements will be much greater for Bitcoin Core's LN Hubs, the reason is if you ddos LN hubs at the time channels are scheduled to be closed,
it opens the possibility of one of the parties stealing the others coins, this attack vector is not possible on Bitcoin Cash Full Nodes so they will need less ddos protections.*

The average U.S. fixed broadband download speed was 64.17 Mbps (15th in the world) in the first half of 2017,
while the average upload speed was 22.79 Mbps (24th in the world), according to data released today from internet speed test company Ookla.Sep 7, 2017

Taking the lowest average upload speed of 22.79 Mbps / 8 = 2.85 MB per second
So a 32MB file would be Relayed / Transferred in less than 12 seconds
0   Block Generated -1 Node
12 seconds -  2 Nodes
24 seconds -  4 Nodes
36 seconds -  8 Nodes
48 seconds - 16 Nodes
60 seconds - 32 Nodes
72 seconds - 64 Nodes
84 seconds - 128 Nodes
96 seconds - 256 Nodes
108 seconds - 512 Nodes
120 seconds - 1024 Nodes
132 seconds - 2048 Nodes
144 seconds - 4096 Nodes
156 seconds - 8192 Nodes
168 seconds - 16384 Nodes
180 seconds - 32768 Nodes
* All of this happens within 3 minutes, the fact is some will be running 1 gigabit or higher bandwidth nodes and they will increase the propagation at a much faster rate than above. *
* Essentially the 32MB blocks are no big deal even at today's average internet speeds.*

[Abiky]

There seems to be some confusion about their block size increase.
They are increasing the Potential of a block to be 32mb, not that every block will always be 32 MB.
In Fact, they have only rarely used the 8mb blocks since they began, only when someone tried to spam transaction them , and they wipe it out in 1 block.

https://cash.coin.dance/blocks

The Bitcoin (BTC) chain has grown 32.77GB more than the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.

It is currently 6.7% more profitable to mine on the Bitcoin (BTC) chain.?

It is currently 21.52x more expensive to transact on the Bitcoin (BTC) network in USD.

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.

Considering a Bitcoin Cash node only has to run a full node to help the network , and that a Bitcoin Core Node and a LN Hub would be required for a stable LN network, it may turn out core full node and LN hub data & definitely bandwidth requirements would exceed anything needed by just running a simple Bitcoin Cash Node. 
But Time will tell on that speculation.
* The Bandwidth requirements will be much greater for Bitcoin Core's LN Hubs, the reason is if you ddos LN hubs at the time channels are scheduled to be closed,
it opens the possibility of one of the parties stealing the others coins, this attack vector is not possible on Bitcoin Cash Full Nodes so they will need less ddos protections.*

The average U.S. fixed broadband download speed was 64.17 Mbps (15th in the world) in the first half of 2017,
while the average upload speed was 22.79 Mbps (24th in the world), according to data released today from internet speed test company Ookla.Sep 7, 2017

Taking the lowest average upload speed of 22.79 Mbps / 8 = 2.85 MB per second
So a 32MB file would be Relayed / Transferred in less than 12 seconds
0   Block Generated -1 Node
12 seconds -  2 Nodes
24 seconds -  4 Nodes
36 seconds -  8 Nodes
48 seconds - 16 Nodes
60 seconds - 32 Nodes
72 seconds - 64 Nodes
84 seconds - 128 Nodes
96 seconds - 256 Nodes
108 seconds - 512 Nodes
120 seconds - 1024 Nodes
132 seconds - 2048 Nodes
144 seconds - 4096 Nodes
156 seconds - 8192 Nodes
168 seconds - 16384 Nodes
180 seconds - 32768 Nodes
* All of this happens within 3 minutes, the fact is some will be running 1 gigabit or higher bandwidth nodes and they will increase the propagation at a much faster rate than above. *
* Essentially the 32MB blocks are no big deal even at today's average internet speeds.*

Quite interesting observation, mate. I've always thought that increasing the block size would make the chain bigger than ever as blocks will get automatically filled to 32mb. But, now I understand that even if block size is increased, blocks won't necessarily fill up to 32mb. Considering your research, it seems that a 32mb block size is still safe to use within a cryptocurrency. It will all depend on how technology improves overtime, and prices become reduced to a level where people could afford new technologies to maintain their full nodes.

With Moore's law, this will surely happen so it shouldn't be much of an issue increasing a block size to a greater amount in the future. I believe that it’s best to implement a dynamic block size system to Bitcoin Cash instead of a fixed size block size like 32mb. That way, the network could adapt to a specific block size depending on the load of transactions, among other factors. Bitcoin Unlimited had such feature, so it could be easily implemented into Bitcoin Cash in the future. Just my opinion

[tanjilrifat]

Some businesses will run cheap Lightning Nodes to collect and sell data. A block size increase would be mandatory to realize the full potential of the Lightning Network.

[cryptohunter]

Perhaps the best answer is to be distributed rather than pushing it all on to one project.

Have btc as the unit/storage of wealth

Several "good " alts with wide distribution - ltc, doge, etc, as spreading the tx load.

LN has it's place but it is moving in the opposite direction to the decentralised trustless end to end arena most wanted at the start.

when you boil all other alts down and take into account the years btc has been here it seems the limitations of btc are simply part of being so decentralised and so trustless. You want higher tps you have to give in the other 2 areas or open yourself to other issues.

There have been no solid improvements over btc design yet by other alts. LN is another work around but again you are losing a lot of what btc provided.

[BelieveInBTC]

No it isn't and it will never be because of its design. Lightning Network is basically a P2P system which doesn't even need miners to confirm a transaction. They are needed later if you want to close the channel. Many people don't know how Lightning Network works or they might haven't even heard of it. People are only waiting for Bitcoin to increase in price and they are not interested on what is going on behind the scene.

[pawanjain]

Firstly I would like to give my opinion on the lightning network and Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a peer to peer decentralized network and the lightning network is a peer to peer network as well but whether it is decentralized or centralized is still to be known. I would consider it to be a decentralized network because its a person who opens up a channel and the other decides whether to join that channel and transact over it or not. So it depends upon us whether to join any channel or not. The fees won't be an issue because it will be much cheaper than the fees on the main chain and if at all it is costlier than the main chain(which I dont think will happen) , we will still have the option to do the transaction on the main chain rather than the channel.
So if there are options then I would consider it to be a decentralized network.

[franky1]

Firstly I would like to give my opinion on the lightning network and Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a peer to peer decentralized network and the lightning network is a peer to peer network as well but whether it is decentralized or centralized is still to be known. I would consider it to be a decentralized network because its a person who opens up a channel and the other decides whether to join that channel and transact over it or not. So it depends upon us whether to join any channel or not. The fees won't be an issue because it will be much cheaper than the fees on the main chain and if at all it is costlier than the main chain(which I dont think will happen) , we will still have the option to do the transaction on the main chain rather than the channel.
So if there are options then I would consider it to be a decentralized network.

LN is:
not peer to peer
its 'managd accounts where funds are locked onchain and then you gt to play around in a 'account'(channel) whereby all paymnts need a authoriser counterpart. if you want to pay a third person you need not only your counterpart to authorise your paymnt but to also authorise them spending their separate account with that third person on your behalf. if thier is a need to pay a 4th person. then you need the third persons authorisation with your counterpart, and th 3rd persons authorisation with the 4th person.  its lik playing a game of hot potato.. the funds you carry do not leave the channel. its a case of giving it to the counter part... and then the counter part uses their ow separate funds to then pay the third party. and the third party uses their own separate funds to pay the 4th party..   
it only works if everyone along the route is well funded, online and willing to use their funds for others.

not a feature of bitcoin
its not something only btc will have privelidge of as a feature that makes btc unique. other currencies will use it too

not a bitcoin solution to make bitcoin better
its its own network without the requirement of peer review. infact unless you are reading the raw transaction data of every 'payment' you have no clue what your agreeing to and what opcodes the counterpart had put inplace into the tx. its so much of a separate network that its designed to allow other cryptocurrencies to work on LN and as such some counterparts will be incentivised to screw you out of your bitcoins via many different techniques (even the LN devs are saying becareful you can lose funds on it)
and at best to avoid costs of broadcasting expensive onchain fee's leave you only able to exit via crapcoins
LN is not dsigned to fix bitcoin issues. its used to lock peoples 'store of value' and eventually hand control of that value to someone else whereby the channel only closes when one side has nothing left. (there are many punishments that can be added unless you eagerly read every raw tx. so many ways to lose funds) and by the time its in a block. its too late

[Zin-Zang]

Some say that the Lightning Network is centralized, but from my point of view, it's still a decentralized solution to scale Bitcoin as anyone would be able to run a Lightning node at will. The huge advantages that it provides for Bitcoin such as dirt-cheap fees, and instant transactions would be too hard to ignore to implement in the future.

However, if the Lightning Network turns out to become a centralized solution for Bitcoin (like many claims it will), then it would be doomed as only those with a lot of wealth and power would be able to participate in this ecosystem.

What are your thoughts about this? Is Lightning really centralized? Or Decentralized?

Lightning Network will be centralized.
Whether or not that dooms it has yet to be seem , but it will be no different than a Centralized Banking System.

As far a LN fees being cheap, it has not even begun to be used, so the promise of cheap fees may be exaggerated and proved to be false as usage increases.
LN is also a variable fee structure as such as it use increases so too will their fees.  

Bitcoin core transaction fees were cheap , but they increased in time , odds are so will LN's fees.

[pooya87]

~

Quite interesting observation, mate. I've always thought that increasing the block size would make the chain bigger than ever as blocks will get automatically filled to 32mb. But, now I understand that even if block size is increased, blocks won't necessarily fill up to 32mb. Considering your research, it seems that a 32mb block size is still safe to use within a cryptocurrency. It will all depend on how technology improves overtime, and prices become reduced to a level where people could afford new technologies to maintain their full nodes.

With Moore's law, this will surely happen so it shouldn't be much of an issue increasing a block size to a greater amount in the future. I believe that it’s best to implement a dynamic block size system to Bitcoin Cash instead of a fixed size block size like 32mb. That way, the network could adapt to a specific block size depending on the load of transactions, among other factors. Bitcoin Unlimited had such feature, so it could be easily implemented into Bitcoin Cash in the future. Just my opinion

first of all if you don't use the space then creating it is pointless. it is like buying an airplane to go to your job which is 1 block away from your house!
secondly when you open up space (32MB) you are making spam attacks easy. it doesn't  cost anything to fill these 32 MB blocks and cause havoc.
thirdly you are not just a leach, as a contributing node you want to connect to different nodes and send/receive blocks and transactions. this means downloading and uploading. your monthly traffic is going to be ridiculously huge. check out Shorena's node status here, you will see very interesting stats. he is already spending 1-2 TB traffic per month.
finally it has never been just about the size. the problem is Zin-Zang doesn't understand anything about bitcoin. you are not  downloading a file. you are downloading a block. which means you download the blocks, verify each transaction and then add it to your blockchain. that verification is the bottleneck.

[Zin-Zang]

~

Quite interesting observation, mate. I've always thought that increasing the block size would make the chain bigger than ever as blocks will get automatically filled to 32mb. But, now I understand that even if block size is increased, blocks won't necessarily fill up to 32mb. Considering your research, it seems that a 32mb block size is still safe to use within a cryptocurrency. It will all depend on how technology improves overtime, and prices become reduced to a level where people could afford new technologies to maintain their full nodes.

With Moore's law, this will surely happen so it shouldn't be much of an issue increasing a block size to a greater amount in the future. I believe that it’s best to implement a dynamic block size system to Bitcoin Cash instead of a fixed size block size like 32mb. That way, the network could adapt to a specific block size depending on the load of transactions, among other factors. Bitcoin Unlimited had such feature, so it could be easily implemented into Bitcoin Cash in the future. Just my opinion

first of all if you don't use the space then creating it is pointless. it is like buying an airplane to go to your job which is 1 block away from your house!
secondly when you open up space (32MB) you are making spam attacks easy. it doesn't  cost anything to fill these 32 MB blocks and cause havoc.
thirdly you are not just a leach, as a contributing node you want to connect to different nodes and send/receive blocks and transactions. this means downloading and uploading. your monthly traffic is going to be ridiculously huge. check out Shorena's node status here, you will see very interesting stats. he is already spending 1-2 TB traffic per month.
finally it has never been just about the size. the problem is Zin-Zang doesn't understand anything about bitcoin. you are not  downloading a file. you are downloading a block. which means you download the blocks, verify each transaction and then add it to your blockchain. that verification is the bottleneck.

pooya87 is the one with limited intellect,
otherwise he would realize that a larger block means than IT COSTS MORE TO TRY AND FILL IT WITH SPAM TRANSACTIONS.
* How many times has someone tried to spam bitcoin cash since it moved to 8 MB,  *
* It happen once and One 8MB block wiped out the whole spam attack at great expense to the attacker and the next block was again using less than 1 mb.*
* Bitcoin Cash Developers have ran tests verifying their network can support 32 MB blocks when needed (It may be 15 years or more before they fill it on a regular basis) , whether pooya87 can accept that is his problem. *


According to the idiots pooya87 follows such as Blockstream , 8 MB blocks was impossible and Bitcoin Cash proved blockstream all to be fools.
Problem is Blockstream had an agenda to get LN activated, as that is what the bankers paid them to do.
People like pooya87 that see bitcoin as a religion instead of a technology are stupid enough to believe the nonsense , blockstream puts out.

[Dasinc]

MIT researcher Thaddeus Driya, co-author of Lightning Network whitepaper and former technical Director of Lightning Labs, believes that the network will avoid corporate centralization in General because of its design, which does not require expensive and does not require specialized equipment