Is the Lightning Network centralized?

[hv_]

It makes sense for BTC to attempt a mix of both on and off-chain ideas if other forks are going to keep their focus purely on-chain.  Why put all your eggs in one basket if you don't need to?

Don't forget that the Lightning Network could be also used for cross-chain atomic swaps. In some cases, it still does not make any sense, but it's a feature that might be used by people who want to avoid using exchanges and escrow. Some people think that Litecoin and the Lightning Network is a perfect combination. Well, payments processors are busy implementing Bitcoin LN payments.

If you ease hurdles and open up such bridges Bitcoins built in scarcity is at risk.

[1714195797]

1714195797

[1714195797]

1714195797

[1714195797]

1714195797

[1714195797]

1714195797

[DooMAD]

Don't forget that the Lightning Network could be also used for cross-chain atomic swaps. In some cases, it still does not make any sense, but it's a feature that might be used by people who want to avoid using exchanges and escrow. Some people think that Litecoin and the Lightning Network is a perfect combination. Well, payments processors are busy implementing Bitcoin LN payments.

If you ease hurdles and open up such bridges Bitcoins built in scarcity is at risk.

Is it, though?  The ability to conveniently hop to other blockchains doesn't create additional supply.  It's creating extra utility, not more coins.  It wouldn't make litecoins equal to bitcoins, it simply removes some potential middlemen between the two.  They're still different coins, so there will be no impact on scarcity.

[d5000]

Don't forget that the Lightning Network could be also used for cross-chain atomic swaps.

If you ease hurdles and open up such bridges Bitcoins built in scarcity is at risk.

Is it, though?  The ability to conveniently hop to other blockchains doesn't create additional supply.  It's creating extra utility, not more coins.  It wouldn't make litecoins equal to bitcoins, it simply removes some potential middlemen between the two.  They're still different coins, so there will be no impact on scarcity.

I think hv_ still is dreaming of a monopoly game with Bitcoin (=Cash?) as the one and only cryptocurrency - and then, somewhen later, as the only currency of the world, making early adopters extremely rich (even I with my tiny BTC holdings would be rich in this case , and Satoshi would be richer than the 100 top billionaires of today.)

In this case, his argumentation makes some sense. But without an authoritarian regime of some kind (even if it's an authoritarian developer group which uses his power "softly", e.g. bribing merchants to not accept other coins than Bitcoin) this won't happen.

First, because there will always be an incentive to create other cryptocurrencies. Second, atomic swaps are already happening, they're open source. You can't forbid them (the only way would be, ironically, to make the block size smaller to achieve extremely high fees, which would lower the incentives even for LN-powered swaps).

But I think also, hv_, that your fear is unfounded. The strength of a cryptocurrency lies in its ecosystem, and as DoomAD already said, in its utility. So scarcity won't go away, because only a limited number of cryptocurrencies can really see mass adoption. I don't see Bitcoin not being part of this group.

[pooya87]

Don't forget that the Lightning Network could be also used for cross-chain atomic swaps.

If you ease hurdles and open up such bridges Bitcoins built in scarcity is at risk.

Is it, though?  The ability to conveniently hop to other blockchains doesn't create additional supply.  It's creating extra utility, not more coins.  It wouldn't make litecoins equal to bitcoins, it simply removes some potential middlemen between the two.  They're still different coins, so there will be no impact on scarcity.

I think hv_ still is dreaming of a monopoly game with Bitcoin (=Cash?) as the one and only cryptocurrency - and then, somewhen later, as the only currency of the world, making early adopters extremely rich (even I with my tiny BTC holdings would be rich in this case , and Satoshi would be richer than the 100 top billionaires of today.)

In this case, his argumentation makes some sense. But without an authoritarian regime of some kind (even if it's an authoritarian developer group which uses his power "softly", e.g. bribing merchants to not accept other coins than Bitcoin) this won't happen.

First, because there will always be an incentive to create other cryptocurrencies. Second, atomic swaps are already happening, they're open source. You can't forbid them (the only way would be, ironically, to make the block size smaller to achieve extremely high fees, which would lower the incentives even for LN-powered swaps).

But I think also, hv_, that your fear is unfounded. The strength of a cryptocurrency lies in its ecosystem, and as DoomAD already said, in its utility. So scarcity won't go away, because only a limited number of cryptocurrencies can really see mass adoption. I don't see Bitcoin not being part of this group.

the funny thing about bitcoin cash and its followers is that they talk shit about bitcoin while doing whatever bitcoin does, either now or in the near future. and i mean it literary everything including SegWit, LN and everything else. the only thing they changed was block size. they may not have all of these now but they will add them with a different name eventually. for example Bech32 addresses are already implemented for BCH, there are talks about second layer with a different name than LN!
Atomic Swaps have also happened already on BCH network. in fact it happened last year in November!

[hv_]

Don't forget that the Lightning Network could be also used for cross-chain atomic swaps.

If you ease hurdles and open up such bridges Bitcoins built in scarcity is at risk.

Is it, though?  The ability to conveniently hop to other blockchains doesn't create additional supply.  It's creating extra utility, not more coins.  It wouldn't make litecoins equal to bitcoins, it simply removes some potential middlemen between the two.  They're still different coins, so there will be no impact on scarcity.

I think hv_ still is dreaming of a monopoly game with Bitcoin (=Cash?) as the one and only cryptocurrency - and then, somewhen later, as the only currency of the world, making early adopters extremely rich (even I with my tiny BTC holdings would be rich in this case , and Satoshi would be richer than the 100 top billionaires of today.)

In this case, his argumentation makes some sense. But without an authoritarian regime of some kind (even if it's an authoritarian developer group which uses his power "softly", e.g. bribing merchants to not accept other coins than Bitcoin) this won't happen.

First, because there will always be an incentive to create other cryptocurrencies. Second, atomic swaps are already happening, they're open source. You can't forbid them (the only way would be, ironically, to make the block size smaller to achieve extremely high fees, which would lower the incentives even for LN-powered swaps).

But I think also, hv_, that your fear is unfounded. The strength of a cryptocurrency lies in its ecosystem, and as DoomAD already said, in its utility. So scarcity won't go away, because only a limited number of cryptocurrencies can really see mass adoption. I don't see Bitcoin not being part of this group.

the funny thing about bitcoin cash and its followers is that they talk shit about bitcoin while doing whatever bitcoin does, either now or in the near future. and i mean it literary everything including SegWit, LN and everything else. the only thing they changed was block size. they may not have all of these now but they will add them with a different name eventually. for example Bech32 addresses are already implemented for BCH, there are talks about second layer with a different name than LN!
Atomic Swaps have also happened already on BCH network. in fact it happened last year in November!

Nope.

[Abiky]

I so understand that faster yes than no. Because a tunnel is created between several participants. And accordingly, he is subject to control on their part. That almost completely steals decentralization. I'm not an expert, these are the assumptions of a crypto-enthusiast))

Well, if you look at the opinions made from veteran users of Bitcoin within this forum, you'll find out that the Lightning Network is in fact a decentralized solution to help Bitcoin scale to millions of TPS. The whitepaper explains this thoroughly and it's expected that the protocol will upgrade to become a better layer-two solution over time. Users will have the choice to select other routing nodes or channels, in case they suspect or fear that a specific channel or node is centralized. Since it's a Peer-to-Peer network, it brings this level of flexibility, without harming Bitcoin's decentralization. Fees would remain cheap, and transactions blazing fast, while anyone would be able to open/close a channel at will. If successful, then Bitcoin could easily overcome altcoins by a long shot (including Bitcoin Cash itself).

I'd recommend that you read more about the Lightning Network's specific features such as: Watchtowers, Atomic Swaps, Channel Factories, and more. It seems that such scalability solution will maintain the decentralization of the BTC blockchain, while helping the pioneer cryptocurrency reach mainstream adoption. Just my opinion

[Rath_]

Since it's a Peer-to-Peer network, it brings this level of flexibility, without harming Bitcoin's decentralization. Fees would remain cheap, and transactions blazing fast, while anyone would be able to open/close a channel at will. If successful, then Bitcoin could easily overcome altcoins by a long shot (including Bitcoin Cash itself).

It all sounds great but don't forget that opening and closing channels still force user to broadcast a transaction. At some point in the future, we might have problems with a large amount of transactions being unconfirmed. Solutions like SegWit and Schnorr signatures are going to help for some time by making transactions smaller. Channel factories could be used to create new channels from existing ones by replacing only two participants with a whole group. Unfortunately, this feature is not available yet.

More layers can be build on top of the Lightning Network and they might be actually what ordinary people will use. Before that happens, Lightning Network still needs some tuning.

[d5000]

the funny thing about bitcoin cash and its followers is that they talk shit about bitcoin while doing whatever bitcoin does, either now or in the near future. and i mean it literary everything including SegWit, LN and everything else. the only thing they changed was block size. they may not have all of these now but they will add them with a different name eventually. for example Bech32 addresses are already implemented for BCH, there are talks about second layer with a different name than LN!

Well, they have a point, at least: If they implement LN or a similar off-chain network, with a bigger block size, they can claim at least three advantages:
- that it would be easier to open a LN channel, as transaction fees will be smaller;
- that they leave people the choice to always do a (relatively cheap) on-chain transaction even if the network is more congested (e.g. with more than 10 tps) instead of massive pressure to use LN for everything in this situation;
- that if an hub tries to scam their clients broadcasting massively old channel states, there will be enough block space for all victims of this kind of scam to settle their channels fastly.

I still think that BCH fans underestimate the centralization risks of their approach. A more conservative flexible-blocksize currency would have my support (like I wrote several times), but BCH is going way too fast.

[pooya87]

the funny thing about bitcoin cash and its followers is that they talk shit about bitcoin while doing whatever bitcoin does, either now or in the near future. and i mean it literary everything including SegWit, LN and everything else. the only thing they changed was block size. they may not have all of these now but they will add them with a different name eventually. for example Bech32 addresses are already implemented for BCH, there are talks about second layer with a different name than LN!

Well, they have a point, at least: If they implement LN or a similar off-chain network, with a bigger block size, they can claim at least three advantages:
- that it would be easier to open a LN channel, as transaction fees will be smaller;
- that they leave people the choice to always do a (relatively cheap) on-chain transaction even if the network is more congested (e.g. with more than 10 tps) instead of massive pressure to use LN for everything in this situation;
- that if an hub tries to scam their clients broadcasting massively old channel states, there will be enough block space for all victims of this kind of scam to settle their channels fastly.

I still think that BCH fans underestimate the centralization risks of their approach. A more conservative flexible-blocksize currency would have my support (like I wrote several times), but BCH is going way too fast.

but there are a couple of problems with that.
- BCH was created solely because their views (at least what they pretended) was that bitcoin should only be used on-chain and there should be nothing else. adding LN or something like LN with a different name would be proving their true reasons for creating BCH: taking over bitcoin
- people sometimes forget that BCH is a fork of bitcoin so it shares all the problems of bitcoin too. just because they increased the block size it doesn't mean they solved the "spam attack" problem. the reason why it is not happening right now is because blocks are completely empty, there is no incentive to attack something like that. if it starts being used more and blocks were fuller then a spam attack would occur and the congestion that you mentioned would occur over there just as easily.
- and finally there is nothing stopping bitcoin from increasing the block size with a hard fork. and i do believe that it will happen eventually in which case there would be even less reason for BCH to even exist.

[Abiky]

It all sounds great but don't forget that opening and closing channels still force user to broadcast a transaction. At some point in the future, we might have problems with a large amount of transactions being unconfirmed. Solutions like SegWit and Schnorr signatures are going to help for some time by making transactions smaller. Channel factories could be used to create new channels from existing ones by replacing only two participants with a whole group. Unfortunately, this feature is not available yet.

More layers can be build on top of the Lightning Network and they might be actually what ordinary people will use. Before that happens, Lightning Network still needs some tuning.

Agree. The Lightning Network would need some tuning over time, if it wants to successfully scale Bitcoin to many people worldwide. Right now, the LN is still being tested and it's not fully robust as a layer-two solution for mainstream use. With the implementation of Channel Factories, costs would be reduced as it would only be required to open/close a single channel for a lot of transactions. However, until this happens, we would have to deal with opening and closing a channel every time, adding up costs as fees increase in the main chain.

I believe that the Lightning Network, SegWit, Schnorr Signatures, Mimblewimble, and even Sidechains, will make Bitcoin a powerful cryptocurrency to handle all the world's payments. Perhaps, by then, there would be no need for Bitcoin Cash, or other altcoins, since Bitcoin would provide instant and cheap transactions without sacrificing the decentralization of the network. Just my thoughts

[iotarocket]

The key is that the primary layer, or main chain, will remain decentralized, but even then Bitmain is gobbling up too much market share. In the case of the Lightning Network, it too will also be decentralized, though powerful companies will exert some influence. Blockchain can never be 100 percent decentralized it seems.

[d5000]

but there are a couple of problems with that.
- BCH was created solely because their views (at least what they pretended) was that bitcoin should only be used on-chain and there should be nothing else. adding LN or something like LN with a different name would be proving their true reasons for creating BCH: taking over bitcoin

"Taking over" Bitcoin - or better: "achieve the leadership in the cryptocurrency sphere" is something I think every single altcoin community out there is pretending. And in our system, there are all the incentives for that.

Now BCH is also an open source project, and if one community member decides to implement something like LN, then nobody can stop him. I am however not very interested in BCH (but I also don't feel hate against it, why hate an open source project, maybe with the exception of a "wiki gun" project or so?) and thus I don't know if the decision to implement LN is supported from their "core" development team. If they implemented a malleability fix, it's a clue that this may be the case.  

if it starts being used more and blocks were fuller then a spam attack would occur and the congestion that you mentioned would occur over there just as easily.

It may be more difficult to spam transactions with the intention to fill a 32 MB block than an 1 MB block. While the fees would be small for the first half or so of the block size, if the block really gets full he will need to waste some money for that. But if he wanted to obstruct the workings of BCH (e.g. to carry out a LN scam), then he would make more harm, too, because 32MB of transactions are much memory/cpu-intense to validate than 4MB.

However, that's exactly my point of criticism with respect to BCH, and the point of most "small blockers": A "successful" BCH would need full nodes with more powerful hardware.

As LN currently needs a full node to run, that would even introduce a new centralization risk: People could only open secure (BCH) LN channels if they ran powerful hardware ... while in the future light LN clients may exist, I guess they will be less secure than those that work with a full node.

- and finally there is nothing stopping bitcoin from increasing the block size with a hard fork. and i do believe that it will happen eventually in which case there would be even less reason for BCH to even exist.

I even hope it will be possible without a hard fork. The Segwit "weight ratio", as I've read somewhere in the heat of the scalability debate, could in theory be modified with a soft fork, just like the 1 to 4Mb increase was achieved.

[Jessica2009]

  Lightning network is a potent solution to cryptocurrency scaling that means it creates a layer on the top of Bitcoin that enables fast and cheap transactions  which  can settle on Bitcoin blockchain . Lightning network cannot be said as decentralized one, since lightning network relies on large centralized hubs  lightning network will be unattractive technology to cryptocrats since by lightning network the anonymity of the Bitcoin will be lost . The central banks and government agencies will be involved Bitcoin means it is free of political and government interest,

[Sonamziv_99]

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?

I think vast center points show up in light of the fact that individuals need to interface with hubs that are constantly on the web and right now have numerous associations, since it can bring about shorter courses and along these lines less expensive charges. Thus, on the off chance that we consider hubs/centers as a type of installment processors, there are still a ton of contrasts amongst them and conventional installment processors - they can't stop or take your coins effectively, on the grounds that Lightning convention has solid hostile to swindling instruments. You don't need to utilize center points in the event that you would prefer not to, you can simply pick some option steering or simply interface with somebody straightforwardly - this isn't conceivable with fiat, since you can't simply begin your own particular little bank.

[robbietobby]

Lightning network will most likely not become centralized (more knowledgeable members could confirm or refute this statement). You can Listen to Andreas Antonopolous explaining this concern at 6:35 of this video. He points out that by running a node with lots of payment channels used for many routes, or in other sense, becoming a hub or centralized node, you run the risk of being a target for hacking.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-nKuInDq6g

[dilemamis]

Lightning Network is a centralized platform that is built as a layer from Bitcoin which is decentralized. If lightning network fails then there can be many other systems that are tried out and the one that works the best will become the norm

[indopool]

Lightning network implementation sounds a good idea for everyone because it can save high transaction costs. But because both parties directly transact with each other, I can say that it is centered in that way. but I think like there are still deficiencies that might be experienced.

[pooya87]

Now BCH is also an open source project, and if one community member decides to implement something like LN, then nobody can stop him. I am however not very interested in BCH (but I also don't feel hate against it, why hate an open source project, maybe with the exception of a "wiki gun" project or so?) and thus I don't know if the decision to implement LN is supported from their "core" development team. If they implemented a malleability fix, it's a clue that this may be the case. 

hate is a strong word. but also when they are constantly telling people that "BCH is real bitcoin" and go as far as misleading newcomers to buy BCH by mistake then "hate" comes in. you can see victims of bitcoin.com who are confused why they haven't received bitcoin despite buying it from there!

It may be more difficult to spam transactions with the intention to fill a 32 MB block than an 1 MB block. While the fees would be small for the first half or so of the block size, if the block really gets full he will need to waste some money for that. But if he wanted to obstruct the workings of BCH (e.g. to carry out a LN scam), then he would make more harm, too, because 32MB of transactions are much memory/cpu-intense to validate than 4MB.

the thing about spam attack is that it benefits the people who are doing it and with centralization it becomes easier to do. imagine you control nearly all the mining power going into BCH and decide spamming the network. effectively you are just putting money from one pocket to another one of your pockets because you find all the blocks and no money would be wasted and it can even be profitable when others start paying higher fees. in some cases you don't even have to broadcast the transactions to the network, you can just inject them in the blocks so you would be the only one picking them up and take the fees.
so in my opinion it will all come down to incentive. spam attack against bitcoin meant 3-5BTC (about $10k last time i checked) profit per block. and i haven't checked the end of the year blocks!

in the future light LN clients may exist, I guess they will be less secure than those that work with a full node.

light clients are always less secure. and that future may not be that far away: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/tree/lightning

I even hope it will be possible without a hard fork. The Segwit "weight ratio", as I've read somewhere in the heat of the scalability debate, could in theory be modified with a soft fork, just like the 1 to 4Mb increase was achieved.

it wasn't a block size increase though. block size is still 1 MB, but the capacity has increased with SegWit. and it is not a 4x increase, i am still not sure how much it is because i have heard different percentages. some say 80% increase!
but other capacity increase solutions also exist like schnorr and signature aggregation.

[d5000]

you can see victims of bitcoin.com who are confused why they haven't received bitcoin despite buying it from there!

Huh, just entered the site. Crazy stuff, very close to the S-word  . Here I understand you a bit. Well, at least they offer "Bitcoin Cash" and "Bitcoin Core".

the thing about spam attack is that it benefits the people who are doing it and with centralization it becomes easier to do. imagine you control nearly all the mining power going into BCH and decide spamming the network.

Well, in this case a cryptocurrency is doomed anyway. I still don't understand how spam can be profitable otherwise. There's always a risk the fees go into other miners' pockets.

it wasn't a block size increase though. block size is still 1 MB, but the capacity has increased with SegWit. and it is not a 4x increase, i am still not sure how much it is because i have heard different percentages. some say 80% increase!
but other capacity increase solutions also exist like schnorr and signature aggregation.

No, Segwit has increased the maximum block size. The absolute maximum is almost 4MB, however, it is almost impossible to reach it because you needed 100% SegWit transactions of specific kinds.

Jimmy Song wrote a nice article about that:

The Segwit blocks are restricted by something called Block Weight. Block Weight is a new concept introduced in Segwit, and it’s calculated on a per-transaction basis. Each transaction has a “weight” which is defined this way:

(tx size with witness data stripped) * 3 + (tx size)

Non-Segwit transactions have zero witness data, so the weight for a non-Segwit transaction is exactly 4 times the size. Segwit transactions have some witness data so the weight is going to be less than 4 times the size.

Full article: https://medium.com/@jimmysong/understanding-segwit-block-size-fd901b87c9d4

The 4 MB can be (almost) reached with complex transactions consisting mostly of witness data (ScriptSig). However, an average Segwit transaction has about half the block weight than a legacy transaction, so most of the blocks will be full at about 2 MB of size (estimations I know are in the range of ~1,7 to ~2,4 MB).

[Rath_]

As LN currently needs a full node to run, that would even introduce a new centralization risk: People could only open secure LN channels if they ran powerful hardware ... while in the future light LN clients may exist, I guess they will be less secure than those that work with a full node.

Wrong. Thanks to neutrino, anyone can run a Lightning Network node without setting up a full node. Neutrino is currently available in one of the most popular Lightning Network implementations - LND. Even Raspberry Pi 3 B+ is powerful enough to handle Bitcoin Core and Lightning Network node at the same time. Storage is the biggest problem in that case.

No, Segwit has increased the maximum block size. The absolute maximum is almost 4MB, however, it is almost impossible to reach it because you needed 100% SegWit transactions of specific kinds.

Block weight would be more appropriate term. Take a look here.