Is the Lightning Network centralized?

[Zin-Zang]

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  

Co-Author of Lightning Network, kind of a conflict of interest , don't you think for an impartial opinion.

LN Hubs will be required at the least to report as a money transmitter at worst as a banking institution.
The expenses for these will make it so very few actually run a hub once enforcement of the AML/KYC regulations begin.

The LN hubs fees are also variable , it is funny no one thinks that their fees price can't also skyrocket.  

LN Hubs require constant internet access to avoid funds being stolen, a simple ddos attack at the right time could allow LN funds to be stolen.
There is talk of a WatchTower system to help prevent that, but it is also going to charge additional fees if it ever gets working well.



  

[1714860523]

1714860523

[1714860523]

1714860523

[1714860523]

1714860523

[DooMAD]

According to the idiots pooya87 follows such as Blockstream , 8 MB blocks was impossible and Bitcoin Cash proved blockstream all to be fools.

You haven't proved anything until you can fill an 8mb block and sustain that throughput.  BCH only twice managed to exceed a paltry 200 KB worth of transactions in a single block within the last 48 hours.  

You.  Are.  Not.  Producing.  8.  MB.  Blocks.

And you definitely aren't producing 32 MB blocks, which I understand is the new cap.

You're producing an average of ~50 or 60 KB blocks with a maximum threshold you've not come close to reaching.

[Zin-Zang]

According to the idiots pooya87 follows such as Blockstream , 8 MB blocks was impossible and Bitcoin Cash proved blockstream all to be fools.

You haven't proved anything until you can fill an 8mb block and sustain that throughput.  BCH only twice managed to exceed a paltry 200 KB worth of transactions in a single block within the last 48 hours.  

You.  Are.  Not.  Producing.  8.  MB.  Blocks.

And you definitely aren't producing 32 MB blocks, which I understand is the new cap.

You're producing an average of ~50 or 60 KB blocks with a maximum threshold you've not come close to reaching.

You're another one that can't believe the Bitcoin Cash Developers actually test code before releasing it.
Again your problem not theirs.

https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-8mb-block-479469-clears-over-37000-transactions/

On August 16 at approximately 8 am EDT the mining pool Bitclub Network mined an 8MB block on the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) blockchain.
Block #479469 cleared over 37,000 transactions from the mempool making it the largest block found so far on the BCH chain.
Meanwhile, the BCH network continues to capture infrastructure development and industry support.  

They only produce blocks large enough to hold the transactions , they don't produce the maximum size blocks every single block.

That was the single attempt by some bitcoin core/segwit supporters to spam the Bitcoin Cash Network and they had an EPIC FAIL.
Wiped out their pitiful spam attack in 1 block.

@DooMAD , put your money where your mouth is,
if you believe you can spam fill the bitcoin cash network blocks and crash it , GO AHEAD!  
But I think you're just full of hot air.    

FYI:
Almost every ALTCOIN can exceed the ONCHAIN transaction Capacity of Bitcoin Core right now.
The Fact is Blockstream Lied and many non-thinking people believed them, that offchain was required to scale.
Crypto coins are nowhere near the point where Offchain scaling was the only option left.

[franky1]

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.

i still laugh at the above.
but nice wordplay windfury. it seems your indocrination into that group has taught you how to twist words.

adam back paid his devs to PREVENT increasing the legacy blocksize to satisfy HIS groups political agenda

only problem is you slipped up. how can bitcoin core not increase the blocksize if increasing it is some groups aganda..
remember you pretense that bitcoin core doesnt control anything. so how can they prevent it

this is where windfury has to admit core (adam backs paid devs) do have control.
just check out bitcoin.org/en/download   oh look core and only core is mentioned.
(notice hypocrisy yet)

[franky1]

You.  Are.  Not.  Producing.  8.  MB.  Blocks.

And you definitely aren't producing 32 MB blocks, which I understand is the new cap.

You're producing an average of ~50 or 60 KB blocks with a maximum threshold you've not come close to reaching.

so your worry about spam is empty

how can you argu about spam. then argue there is no spam because blocks are empty.
whats next worry that cars can b overcrowded because you sen a comedy clip of 30 clowns walking out of a mini car.. but then argue that cars should only have a drivers seat because most of the time thers only one person per car.

hint: an near empty block of 0.2mb does not lock off 32mb of hard drive space. it just uses 0.2mb of hard drive space. but allows the rules of allowing mor transactions in without 2 years of debate.

its better to have 32mb limit and not need it. than to have 1mb limit and argue for 2 years how to expand it
its better to 4 seat car and not need it. than to have 1seat car and argue for 2 years how to upgrade the car

take you pc. if you only intend to store 1 jpeg image on the PC world you specifically ask a PC retailer for a pc with a hard drive that only stores the operating system+1jpeg. or woul you want a hard drive that has the capacity for alot more knowing you may needd more in the future, and dont want 2 years of hassle arguing about upgrading your pc.

funny part is any coin, even btc can prevent spam. simply by having a fee priority formulae re-established. that makes it harder/more expensive to spend fresh utxo that have not matured for long(low coinage/confirm count=expensive), that alone will solve people trying to churn through transactions by spending them as son as they are confirmed.

but anyway. btc has stagnated onchain. and all devs care about is LN so that they can grab peoples BTC using punishments and exsivvive onchain fee's to tempt them not to leave LN until thir channel is empty. or get kicked to a crap coin so the hubs can get all the btc.
typical banker mindset

[hv_]

You.  Are.  Not.  Producing.  8.  MB.  Blocks.

And you definitely aren't producing 32 MB blocks, which I understand is the new cap.

You're producing an average of ~50 or 60 KB blocks with a maximum threshold you've not come close to reaching.

so your worry about spam is empty. because there is no spam filling up every block?
funny part is any coin, even btc can prvent spam. simply by having a fee priority formulae re-established. that makes it harder/more expensive to spend fresh utxo that have not matured for long(low coinage/confirm count=expensive), that alone will solve people trying to churn through transactions by spending them as son as they are confirmed.

but anyway. btc has stagnated onchain. and all devs care about is LN so that they can grab peoples BTC using punishments and exsivvive onchain fee's to tempt them not to leave LN until thir channel is empty. or get kicked to a crap coin so the hubs can get all the btc.
typical banker mindset

Yes, I speak with a lot of bankers about Bitcoin and LN. They always identify LN as most interesting to enter this market since it is typical their business. Get prepared that if it is a thing, small and medium entities will not long exist.

Regulation is a thing here as well, so think of what bigger entities will pull to get smaller ones out of markets.

[franky1]

Yes, I speak with a lot of bankers about Bitcoin and LN. They always identify LN as most interesting to enter this market since it is typical their business. Get prepared that if it is a thing, small and medium entities will not long exist.

Regulation is a thing here as well, so think of what bigger entities will pull to get smaller ones out of markets.

yep and segwit addresses BC1q were not designed as a sole btc feature.
LN was not designed as a sole btc feature

the bc1q addresses were designed to identify btc tx's when the bankers add their hyper ledger system to LN so that they can tell the difference between a btc address and their atomically swappable fiat coins.

bankers running the hubs 'for convenience of users' is already in the works.

even the layout of hubs is the same network layout as bank branches. the co-signing requirement is the same as bankers authorised payments.

[DooMAD]

You're another one that can't believe the Bitcoin Cash Developers actually test code before releasing it.
Again your problem not theirs.

https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-8mb-block-479469-clears-over-37000-transactions/

On August 16 at approximately 8 am EDT the mining pool Bitclub Network mined an 8MB block on the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) blockchain.
Block #479469 cleared over 37,000 transactions from the mempool making it the largest block found so far on the BCH chain.
Meanwhile, the BCH network continues to capture infrastructure development and industry support.  

They only produce blocks large enough to hold the transactions , they don't produce the maximum size blocks every single block.

You might be missing the point just a little bit.  Sure, the network will readily cope with the occasional large block, mostly because all the others are so proportionately tiny.  But if they were to produce the maximum size block every single block, that's where you might find some issues creeping in.  That's when some of the people trying to run full nodes will suddenly decide that's no longer an option.  That's when the claims that BCH is centralised start to gain a bit of credibility.  For the record, I don't think BCH is centralised, just that it has a greater potential to move in that direction.

so your worry about spam is empty

how can you argu about spam. then argue there is no spam because blocks are empty.
whats next worry that cars can b overcrowded because you sen a comedy clip of 30 clowns walking out of a mini car.. but then argue that cars should only have a drivers seat because most of the time thers only one person per car.

hint: an near empty block of 0.2mb does not lock off 32mb of hard drive space. it just uses 0.2mb of hard drive space. but allows the rules of allowing mor transactions in without 2 years of debate.

its better to have 32mb limit and not need it. than to have 1mb limit and argue for 2 years how to expand it
its better to 4 seat car and not need it. than to have 1seat car and argue for 2 years how to upgrade the car

So why have the 32MB limit?  Why not remove it altogether?  It seems largely symbolic at this stage, doesn't it?

[Boldcom]

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 "centralization" that most people talk about is really about limiting who can effectively (and profitably) participate. Lightning Network channels will naturally tend to form along the paths of economic activity. If you assume (as I do) that most economic activity in Bitcoin today is from individuals to large Bitcoin businesses (mostly exchanges), then you should further assume that most channels will be between users and those very same large businesses.

You can call the centralization if you wish---but it is not a centralization of Lightning's making; it is a centralization that already exists for Bitcoin users.

[DooMAD]

If you assume (as I do) that most economic activity in Bitcoin today is from individuals to large Bitcoin businesses (mostly exchanges), then you should further assume that most channels will be between users and those very same large businesses.

The hope would be that, as adoption increases, real-world use cases would become more prevalent on Lightning.  Retailers providing tangible goods and services would ideally start to see as much traffic as exchanges.  But obviously we'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

I'd say it's not that uncommon for most of our daily financial transactions to be with businesses rather than other individuals, so it's only natural that most of the money will flow in a similar fashion in Bitcoin as it becomes more mainstream.

[franky1]

So why have the 32MB limit?  Why not remove it altogether?  It seems largely symbolic at this stage, doesn't it?

even before the 1mb that satoshi put in during 2010. satoshi had a 32mb limit. this was called the "message size limit"
the reason for 32mb was due to technical stuff outside of blockchain stuff. and more about the internet technical issues

ill leave you to google the technicals but in short its easier to send data in clumps of under 32mb due to increased risk of packet/data loss which can cause propogation delays because so many packets would need to be checked and re sent the bigger the file gets

again this was not a bitcoin/blockchain limitation. it was a internet data transmission procaution to reduce delay, double transmission and other issues.
this is why you see so many image upload services, microsoft word upload, email attachments that have 32mb limits (if they want superfast service withleast chances of data retransmission)

but as i said ill leave you to google the technicals
bigger files are possible but then it requires extra code to double check stuff and need more code to rebuild lost packets etc. so it was simpler to just avoid going that high, to kep the system efficient.

[Aarti madan]

After studying a bit on google about lightning Network, it appears centralized to me.

[franky1]

If you assume (as I do) that most economic activity in Bitcoin today is from individuals to large Bitcoin businesses (mostly exchanges), then you should further assume that most channels will be between users and those very same large businesses.

The hope would be that, as adoption increases, real-world use cases would become more prevalent on Lightning.  Retailers providing tangible goods and services would ideally start to see as much traffic as exchanges.  But obviously we'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

I'd say it's not that uncommon for most of our daily financial transactions to be with businesses rather than other individuals, so it's only natural that most of the money will flow in a similar fashion in Bitcoin as it becomes more mainstream.

imaginiing channels
users who may budget they only want to spend $50 a week ($200 a month) will NOT want to put their $200 into 4 channels incase one of the route to a peer goes offline. because that $50 gets locked or cost them on unchain fee to get it out again.

users will end u choosing a hub (bank branch) to connect to and just throw the whole $200 in knowing its just 1 onchain fee they will need to worry about if they need to exit. and decide a hub is less likely to go off line than random users.

again users will not want to set up multiple channels. so the hop model of multiple routes wont work.
(its worth people running scenarios, it helps)
 and the HUB (bank branch) model begins to shine.

take youe own bank account. would you prefer your wages going into one account and then using that account to pay all your bills. or have 8 bank accounts and when you get paid you then have to pay a wire transfer(onchain fe) to then redistribute ur salary into 8 accounts dedicated to each paying a bill.and then knowing if something goes wrong with bing unable to pay a bill it then costs you another onchain fee to move funds again.. most people end up for convenience just throwing it all into one well connected reourse and letting them sign have joint control of your funds
.. this is how banks formed in the first place
even now looking at the LN network overview you can already se many users with 1-2 channels. not 4-8 channels.. and those 1-2 channls are betwen hubs in most cases.. and the hubs that have way way more than 8 connections. are what will bcome the new bank branches.

[franky1]

After studying a bit on google about lightning Network, it appears centralized to me.

alot of LN fans will say "LN is not centralised. its like the SWIFT wire transfer network where its not just one bank office/hq. but multiple banks and account holders.."

but they forget users have to link to others and lock funds in with others. where that other party has to agree on users payments (just like how banks work)
and after studying and running scenarios of usability. hubs(bank branches) start to form as oppose to a user having 4-8 independant channels with each channel going to each service.

and so just like everyone knows all the banks are in it togthr to scrw customers over.. these hubs are all in it to hold all the reserves between them and scalp the users linked to them.

its simple 'degre's of separation' theory
just try doing the math of

4 to the power of 4 = 256 (not even enough for a school yearbook of people) 4 channels per person 4 hops end to end

8 to the power of 8 = 16,777,216 (small island/city population) meaning if all users had 8 channels. it take upto 8 'hops' to get end to end

9 to the power of 9 = 387,420,489 (about the populations of america) 9 channels per person 9 hops end to end

10 to the power of 10  = 10,000,000,000 (world population) 10 channels per person 10 hops end to end

but f you think of a bank HQ that works in 2000 regions. and those regions have 2000 bank branches each and each of those bank branches served 2000 users... thats 8billion users that can reach each othr in 3 hops and the users only need 1 channel to their bank branch

would you prerfer to split your $200 spend across 10 channels. where instantly $2 of your $20 per channel is reserved for closing channel. and it then costing you upto 10millisats(10x1milisat route fee) to get end to end
or
knowing you can fully spend $200 in one go. and the risk of random users going off line is less due to uyou using reliable hubs(bank branches)
would you prerfer to keep your $200 spend in 1 channel. where instantly $2 of your $200 is reserved for closing channel. and it then costing you upto 3millisats(2x1milisat route fee) to get end to end

[pooya87]

You.  Are.  Not.  Producing.  8.  MB.  Blocks.

And you definitely aren't producing 32 MB blocks, which I understand is the new cap.

You're producing an average of ~50 or 60 KB blocks with a maximum threshold you've not come close to reaching.

so your worry about spam is empty

how can you argu about spam. then argue there is no spam because blocks are empty.

spam is all about incentive. without it, the spam won't happen but that doesn't mean it is not a concern for others as well. take 51% attack for example. there are shitcoins out there with such as low hashrate that you can attack then with a tiny altcoin mining rig and wipe out their blocks. but the price of these shticoins is so low that it doesn't give you the incentive to do it. you'll get less than 1 satoshi per coin for many of them!!! this doesn't mean these coins are protected against 51% attack it just means nobody cares enough to attack them.

same goes with spam, nobody gains anything by spamming a shitcoin with empty blocks. but many will benefit from spamming bitcoin even if the blocks were empty. from miners who earn a shitload of money to altcoins who pump their shitcoin because bitcoin fees go up. you seem to have forgotten that in 2017 when Dash was starting to pump with the motto "Dash will replace bitcoin" they were raising money on their forum to spam attack bitcoin with it. nobody ever says "Dash will replace bitcoin cash"!

[Zin-Zang]

You might be missing the point just a little bit.  Sure, the network will readily cope with the occasional large block, mostly because all the others are so proportionately tiny.  But if they were to produce the maximum size block every single block, that's where you might find some issues creeping in.  That's when some of the people trying to run full nodes will suddenly decide that's no longer an option.  That's when the claims that BCH is centralised start to gain a bit of credibility.  For the record, I don't think BCH is centralised, just that it has a greater potential to move in that direction.

It looks like you are going to just have to live with the fact the developers writing Bitcoin Cash Code are smarter than you about what their network can or can't handle.

Like I said earlier , feel free to spam their network and try and prove them wrong.  

spam is all about incentive. without it, the spam won't happen but that doesn't mean it is not a concern for others as well. take 51% attack for example. there are shitcoins out there with such as low hashrate that you can attack then with a tiny altcoin mining rig and wipe out their blocks. but the price of these shticoins is so low that it doesn't give you the incentive to do it. you'll get less than 1 satoshi per coin for many of them!!! this doesn't mean these coins are protected against 51% attack it just means nobody cares enough to attack them.

same goes with spam, nobody gains anything by spamming a shitcoin with empty blocks. but many will benefit from spamming bitcoin even if the blocks were empty. from miners who earn a shitload of money to altcoins who pump their shitcoin because bitcoin fees go up. you seem to have forgotten that in 2017 when Dash was starting to pump with the motto "Dash will replace bitcoin" they were raising money on their forum to spam attack bitcoin with it. nobody ever says "Dash will replace bitcoin cash"!

You really need to read up on other coins.
Many other coins do not allow variable transaction fees.  (That is the crux of the problem.)
Your Bitcoin Core coin variable fees and limited onchain block space is what allowed the months of spamming that raised transaction fees up to ~$40 last year.

Many Peercoin based Proof of Stake coins delete all transaction fees, completely removing spamming as an incentive.
Also any coin that has a fixed transaction fee negates any reason to spam for the profit of increasing the fee structure.
Proof of Stake coins with these features are totally resistant to pathetic spam attacks.

Aside from the above, Bitcoin Cash solution was to have a large enough capacity that spam attack just wasted an attacker's funds, which works as only once was a spam attack even attempted. By having plenty of onchain capacity , they negated any reason for someone to try a spam attack.

Feel Free to run your own spam attack on any proof of stake coin or bitcoin cash, their design will enlighten you as you EPIC FAIL in the attempt.  


FYI:
LN will allow Variable Fees , it will be interesting to see if someone figures out a way to use DDOS attacks or something else as a way to jack up their variable fee structure.

[hv_]

You're another one that can't believe the Bitcoin Cash Developers actually test code before releasing it.
Again your problem not theirs.

https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-8mb-block-479469-clears-over-37000-transactions/

On August 16 at approximately 8 am EDT the mining pool Bitclub Network mined an 8MB block on the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) blockchain.
Block #479469 cleared over 37,000 transactions from the mempool making it the largest block found so far on the BCH chain.
Meanwhile, the BCH network continues to capture infrastructure development and industry support.  

They only produce blocks large enough to hold the transactions , they don't produce the maximum size blocks every single block.

You might be missing the point just a little bit.  Sure, the network will readily cope with the occasional large block, mostly because all the others are so proportionately tiny.  But if they were to produce the maximum size block every single block, that's where you might find some issues creeping in.  That's when some of the people trying to run full nodes will suddenly decide that's no longer an option.  That's when the claims that BCH is centralised start to gain a bit of credibility.  For the record, I don't think BCH is centralised, just that it has a greater potential to move in that direction.

so your worry about spam is empty

how can you argu about spam. then argue there is no spam because blocks are empty.
whats next worry that cars can b overcrowded because you sen a comedy clip of 30 clowns walking out of a mini car.. but then argue that cars should only have a drivers seat because most of the time thers only one person per car.

hint: an near empty block of 0.2mb does not lock off 32mb of hard drive space. it just uses 0.2mb of hard drive space. but allows the rules of allowing mor transactions in without 2 years of debate.

its better to have 32mb limit and not need it. than to have 1mb limit and argue for 2 years how to expand it
its better to 4 seat car and not need it. than to have 1seat car and argue for 2 years how to upgrade the car

So why have the 32MB limit?  Why not remove it altogether?  It seems largely symbolic at this stage, doesn't it?

To have enough excess capacity for next few years.

And right, the max BS might be gone soon.

[Wind_FURY]

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  

Co-Author of Lightning Network, kind of a conflict of interest , don't you think for an impartial opinion.

LN Hubs will be required at the least to report as a money transmitter at worst as a banking institution.
The expenses for these will make it so very few actually run a hub once enforcement of the AML/KYC regulations begin.

What "LN hubs"? We have Bitcoin wallet services like blockchain.info that do not require their users to verify their identities. Plus what if I run a Lightning node and many users happen to connect to me? "I will not enforce AML/KYC" will be my LN node name. Hahaha.

The LN hubs fees are also variable , it is funny no one thinks that their fees price can't also skyrocket.  

It is very scalable at present, and as the developers improve transaction throughput more, the fees will be the last thing to worry about.

LN Hubs require constant internet access to avoid funds being stolen, a simple ddos attack at the right time could allow LN funds to be stolen.
There is talk of a WatchTower system to help prevent that, but it is also going to charge additional fees if it ever gets working well.

Learn to walk before you run. The Lightning Network is growing and improving. It also has more nodes than Bitcoin Cash.

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.

i still laugh at the above.
but nice wordplay windfury. it seems your indocrination into that group has taught you how to twist words.

adam back paid his devs to PREVENT increasing the legacy blocksize to satisfy HIS groups political agenda

only problem is you slipped up. how can bitcoin core not increase the blocksize if increasing it is some groups aganda..
remember you pretense that bitcoin core doesnt control anything. so how can they prevent it

this is where windfury has to admit core (adam backs paid devs) do have control.
just check out bitcoin.org/en/download   oh look core and only core is mentioned.
(notice hypocrisy yet)

You and your conspiracy theories again. Not increasing the block size is a design decision to keep node requirements minimal to maintain decentralization. But go ahead and enjoy your 32mb block size that nobody uses. Dogecoin has more transactions than Bitcoin Cash. Hahaha.

Plus I hope those blocks become full just to see how centralizing Bitcoin Cash is. It will come to a point that very few people can run a Bitcoin Cash node because not all people are willing to upgrade their hardware.

[Zin-Zang]

LN Hubs will be required at the least to report as a money transmitter at worst as a banking institution.
The expenses for these will make it so very few actually run a hub once enforcement of the AML/KYC regulations begin.

What "LN hubs"? We have Bitcoin wallet services like blockchain.info that do not require their users to verify their identities.
Plus what if I run a Lightning node and many users happen to connect to me? "I will not enforce AML/KYC" will be my LN node name. Hahaha.

LOL,
You don't read much about the US Laws , do you?

Be sure to post what prison, they send you too and I will mail you a cake with a file in it.  

And no it won't matter if you are not a US Citizen, if the US Gov can force the Swiss banks to comply, your resistance will be meager at best.
Good Luck with that LN hub.  

FYI:
When you ask your Cell Mate's Name and he says Ben Over, that is not his name!  

[raske]

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?

LN is a trojan horse for the BTC community
my opinion is that will became centralized, like nowdays classic banks