Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2024, 09:06:49 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Is the Lightning Network centralized?  (Read 1922 times)
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3864
Merit: 5807


Decentralization Maximalist


View Profile
August 10, 2018, 05:02:20 AM
 #201

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.

I was referring to Bitcoin Cash + LN in this case, with 32 MB blocks - here a Raspi would be probably a bit underpowered ... Thanks anyway. I had seen neutrino some time ago, but it is warned that it's still experimental (quote: "not recommended to use it with real money"). Is it now stable enough to be used productively?

Quote
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.
I linked to this article in my previous post ...  Wink But what I was referring to is that blocks, since Segwit's introduction, definitively can have ("real") sizes of more than 1 MB, up to almost 4MB, but more than 2 MB only in extreme cases.

█▀▀▀











█▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
e
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█████████████
████████████▄███
██▐███████▄█████▀
█████████▄████▀
███▐████▄███▀
████▐██████▀
█████▀█████
███████████▄
████████████▄
██▄█████▀█████▄
▄█████████▀█████▀
███████████▀██▀
████▀█████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
c.h.
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀█











▄▄▄█
▄██████▄▄▄
█████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███░░█████████
███▌▐█████████
█████████████
███████████▀
██████████▀
████████▀
▀██▀▀
"I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711616809
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711616809

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711616809
Reply with quote  #2

1711616809
Report to moderator
1711616809
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711616809

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711616809
Reply with quote  #2

1711616809
Report to moderator
shawn995
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 10, 2018, 05:21:57 AM
 #202

From my understanding, Lightning Network is an incorporated stage that is worked as a layer from Bitcoin which is decentralized. In the event that lightning system bombs at that point there can be numerous different frameworks that are gone for and the one that works the best will turn into the standard. In the event that you don't care for utilizing a unified stage you can simply adhere to the fundamental chain. The charges may make you not have any desire to however.
Wind_FURY
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 1797



View Profile
August 10, 2018, 05:31:25 AM
 #203

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.

Then I believe it would also prove that the Core developers of Bitcoin made the correct design decisions all along. The Bitcoin Cash community did not need to hard fork from the main chain. Bitcoin also does not urgently need bigger blocks now like many of them said 3 years ago.

Quote
Quote
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.

No latency, block propagation is the real issue, not "more powerful hardware needed".

Quote
Quote
- 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.

I agree, a hard fork in Bitcoin is very dangerous. There are too many attackers waiting to take advantage of it.

██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
.SHUFFLE.COM..███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████
████████████████████
██████████████████████
████████████████████
██████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
.
...Next Generation Crypto Casino...
hv_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
August 10, 2018, 05:59:06 AM
 #204

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.

Then I believe it would also prove that the Core developers of Bitcoin made the correct design decisions all along. The Bitcoin Cash community did not need to hard fork from the main chain. Bitcoin also does not urgently need bigger blocks now like many of them said 3 years ago.



That is where we differ, BTC does not need it any more (today) because many txs happens on other chains

BCH wants them all in the end, and in such a manner, that there is never such a congestion than we had in 2017 in BTC.

Bitcoin is about electronic financial solution, a system for electronic cash and of electronic store of value if you want to highlight that in a separate sentence...

Anyway - no financial participant is interested in congestion if it come to real live usage - that's a no go for small or big participants.

To keep things up and running as stable and secure as possible AND free of regulation attacks and middlemen - there is only one correct way to go.

KISS

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Fix real world issues: Check out b-vote.com
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
pooya87
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3402
Merit: 10433



View Profile
August 10, 2018, 04:02:20 PM
 #205

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.
well one solution is more decentralization of mining and more spread of these mining pools so that reduces the risk of them cooperating with each other for evil purposes. but also you should keep in mind that miners are also making profit as long as bitcoin is working healthy and strong. such actions are not just damaging bitcoin, they also damage their long term profitability.

Quote
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.
yeah i mainly meant the base size of the block without SegWit. that's the real restriction since we will never have 100% SegWit usage in blocks. just like even after all these years there are still people using uncompressed public keys despite them being double the size.

..JAMBLER.io..Create Your Bitcoin Mixing
Business Now for   F R E E 
▄█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████▀████████████████████
███▀█████▄█▀███▀▀▀██████
██▀█████▄█▄██████████████
██▄▄████▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████
█████▄▄▄██████████▀▄████
█████▀▄█▄██████▀█▄█████
███████▀▄█▀█▄██▀█▄███████
█████████▄█▀▄█▀▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
      OUR      
PARTNERS

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
▄█████████████████████████████
████████▀▀█████▀▀████████
█████▀█████████████▀█████
████████████████████████
███████████████▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████▀█████████
████████████████████████
█████▄█████████████▄█████
████████▄▄█████▄▄████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
   INVEST   
BITCOIN

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
pooya87
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3402
Merit: 10433



View Profile
August 10, 2018, 04:19:40 PM
 #206

~
That is where we differ, BTC does not need it any more (today) because many txs happens on other chains
BCH wants them all in the end, and in such a manner, that there is never such a congestion than we had in 2017 in BTC.
there is more transactions on altcoins but these aren't bitcoin users going there to use altcoins because bitcoin fees were high temporarily. and merchants didn't suddenly decide lets drop bitcoin and go to unsafe cryptocurrencies that nobody has tested or used for payment before that are getting hacked, 51% attacked,... left and right.
these transaction increase was due to the pumps that occurred last year and nothing else.

checking the merchants they are doing the same thing as before. those that were accepting bitcoin are still doing so, those that had additional options like litecoin still do and those which dropped it like Steam never chose another  cryptocurrency they just exited this scene.

and as i said before nothing is solved on BCH. just having bigger blocks is not preventing congestion and higher fees unless you have unlimited blocks or blocks bigger than 1 TB

Quote
Bitcoin is about electronic financial solution, a system for electronic cash and of electronic store of value if you want to highlight that in a separate sentence...
yes but first of all it is about a decentralized electronic...

Quote
Anyway - no financial participant is interested in congestion if it come to real live usage - that's a no go for small or big participants.

To keep things up and running as stable and secure as possible AND free of regulation attacks and middlemen - there is only one correct way to go.

KISS
there is no argument about the goal but the way to that goal is important because the consequences of choosing different routs are different. some worse than others. increasing the block size is one of those terrible ways that ends with centralization needing middle men in form of centralized servers running the nodes controlled by certain people opening way for regulation attacks and government interference and censorship.
next thing you know you have to use a VPN to be able to hide your IP when connecting to that node to push your tx because that node is blocking your IP because US ordered them to sanction these IP ranges and they obeyed.

..JAMBLER.io..Create Your Bitcoin Mixing
Business Now for   F R E E 
▄█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████▀████████████████████
███▀█████▄█▀███▀▀▀██████
██▀█████▄█▄██████████████
██▄▄████▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████
█████▄▄▄██████████▀▄████
█████▀▄█▄██████▀█▄█████
███████▀▄█▀█▄██▀█▄███████
█████████▄█▀▄█▀▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
      OUR      
PARTNERS

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
▄█████████████████████████████
████████▀▀█████▀▀████████
█████▀█████████████▀█████
████████████████████████
███████████████▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████▀█████████
████████████████████████
█████▄█████████████▄█████
████████▄▄█████▄▄████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
   INVEST   
BITCOIN

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
crazy-pilot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 861
Merit: 253


SmartFi - EARN, LEND & TRADE


View Profile WWW
August 10, 2018, 04:42:02 PM
 #207

As far as I know lightning network is called to develop the usage of blockchain bitcoin and a lot of regular users will be able to use it more comfortable than before. Miraculous somebody needs to be in charge.

████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████
...The Open..............
...Lending Platform...
████
████
████
████
████
████
████
████
████
████
████
████
████
▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄██████████▀▀▀▀███████▄
█████████▀        ███████
████████▀        ▄█████████
█████████       ▄▀▀██████████
█████████     ▄▀   ▀█████████
██████████  ▄▀      █████████
█████████▀▀       ▄████████
███████        ▄█████████
▀███████▄▄▄▄██████████▀
▀█████████████████▀
▀▀█████████▀▀
.SMARTFI..████
████
████
████
████
████
████
████
████
████
████
████
████
...Join the SmartFi.....
...Token Sale...
████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████
████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████▀▀  ███████
█████████████▀▀      ███████
█████████▀▀   ▄▄     ███████
█████▀▀    ▄█▀▀     ████████
█████████ █▀        ████████
█████████ █ ▄███▄   ████████
██████████████████▄▄████████
████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████████▀▀▄██████▄▀▀████████
███████  ▀        ▀  ███████
██████                ██████
█████▌   ███    ███   ▐█████
█████▌   ▀▀▀    ▀▀▀   ▐█████
██████                ██████
███████▄  ▀██████▀  ▄███████
████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3864
Merit: 5807


Decentralization Maximalist


View Profile
August 10, 2018, 07:38:45 PM
 #208

No latency, block propagation is the real issue, not "more powerful hardware needed".
Sure? I've still the Bitfury study in mind, where >8MB blocks would need powerful computers with more than 8 GB RAM.  Or has this been debunked? Most computers today still have between 4 and 8 GB, and a LN node with a Raspi has even less.

But anyway, if LN on a light Bitcoin node like Neutrino is secure enough for a full LN node, then the centralization risk I mentioned for a Bcash-based LN does not exist, and I was simply wrong Wink

I'll probably try out Neutrino soon (on testnet) so I at least get an impression how it works.

yeah i mainly meant the base size of the block without SegWit. that's the real restriction since we will never have 100% SegWit usage in blocks.
We had already blocks of more than 2 MB, if I'm not wrong. While Segwit transactions are far from 100% the percentage is increasing, and the Bitcoin services I use regularly now almost all operate with Segwit addresses.

█▀▀▀











█▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
e
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█████████████
████████████▄███
██▐███████▄█████▀
█████████▄████▀
███▐████▄███▀
████▐██████▀
█████▀█████
███████████▄
████████████▄
██▄█████▀█████▄
▄█████████▀█████▀
███████████▀██▀
████▀█████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
c.h.
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀█











▄▄▄█
▄██████▄▄▄
█████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███░░█████████
███▌▐█████████
█████████████
███████████▀
██████████▀
████████▀
▀██▀▀
pooya87
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3402
Merit: 10433



View Profile
August 11, 2018, 03:11:25 AM
 #209

yeah i mainly meant the base size of the block without SegWit. that's the real restriction since we will never have 100% SegWit usage in blocks.
We had already blocks of more than 2 MB, if I'm not wrong. While Segwit transactions are far from 100% the percentage is increasing, and the Bitcoin services I use regularly now almost all operate with Segwit addresses.

that thing is too old. here is a better link: https://www.smartbit.com.au/blocks?sort=size&limit=100
so far we have had 17x 2+MB blocks and nearly 100 above 1.5 MB blocks.

..JAMBLER.io..Create Your Bitcoin Mixing
Business Now for   F R E E 
▄█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████▀████████████████████
███▀█████▄█▀███▀▀▀██████
██▀█████▄█▄██████████████
██▄▄████▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████
█████▄▄▄██████████▀▄████
█████▀▄█▄██████▀█▄█████
███████▀▄█▀█▄██▀█▄███████
█████████▄█▀▄█▀▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
      OUR      
PARTNERS

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
▄█████████████████████████████
████████▀▀█████▀▀████████
█████▀█████████████▀█████
████████████████████████
███████████████▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████▀█████████
████████████████████████
█████▄█████████████▄█████
████████▄▄█████▄▄████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
   INVEST   
BITCOIN

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
lonerangerh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 103


A Token Power Raffle Platform In The Ecosys


View Profile
August 11, 2018, 03:35:54 AM
 #210

I think Lightning Network is not centralized? Because of the idea of the Lightning Network, not all transactions have to be recorded on Blockchain. if not recorded on the blockchain. then how do the block strings validate.
No negation of the use of the Lightning Network makes the cost and transaction time shorten, but more research is needed to ensure that it does not affect the block chain.

Wind_FURY
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 1797



View Profile
August 11, 2018, 07:37:13 AM
 #211

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.

Then I believe it would also prove that the Core developers of Bitcoin made the correct design decisions all along. The Bitcoin Cash community did not need to hard fork from the main chain. Bitcoin also does not urgently need bigger blocks now like many of them said 3 years ago.



That is where we differ, BTC does not need it any more (today) because many txs happens on other chains

BCH wants them all in the end, and in such a manner, that there is never such a congestion than we had in 2017 in BTC.

Bitcoin is about electronic financial solution, a system for electronic cash and of electronic store of value if you want to highlight that in a separate sentence...

Bitcoin is a medium for censorship resistance for me than a "financial solution" for an electronic cash system. It's not an insignificant consumer payments product, but an independent financial system that should be kept secure, efficient and decentralized.

If Bitcoin Cash wants to re-enable and add new OPcodes and increase to unlimited blocks, good. But leave Bitcoin alone. The Core developers have been doing a great job by being conservative and careful.

██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
.SHUFFLE.COM..███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████
████████████████████
██████████████████████
████████████████████
██████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
.
...Next Generation Crypto Casino...
hv_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2018, 06:35:41 AM
 #212

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.

Then I believe it would also prove that the Core developers of Bitcoin made the correct design decisions all along. The Bitcoin Cash community did not need to hard fork from the main chain. Bitcoin also does not urgently need bigger blocks now like many of them said 3 years ago.



That is where we differ, BTC does not need it any more (today) because many txs happens on other chains

BCH wants them all in the end, and in such a manner, that there is never such a congestion than we had in 2017 in BTC.

Bitcoin is about electronic financial solution, a system for electronic cash and of electronic store of value if you want to highlight that in a separate sentence...

Bitcoin is a medium for censorship resistance for me than a "financial solution" for an electronic cash system. It's not an insignificant consumer payments product, but an independent financial system that should be kept secure, efficient and decentralized.

If Bitcoin Cash wants to re-enable and add new OPcodes and increase to unlimited blocks, good. But leave Bitcoin alone. The Core developers have been doing a great job by being conservative and careful.


I do not want to do finger pointing.
Yes core devs have done a good job at most of the time , that is not the issue. Core devs are doing a dev job, so what would anyone expect on top? Wanting to be business developers, requirement engineers, change managers or even operational risk managers?

No, I see now that these things will come to Bitcoin Cash in an industrial manner so that institutions (having exactly same setup internally to mitigate risks) will have only one option to move forward with crypto or none, because SEC will kill any other cryptos soon.

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Fix real world issues: Check out b-vote.com
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
Abiky (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1357


www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
August 13, 2018, 01:26:01 AM
 #213

From my understanding, Lightning Network is an incorporated stage that is worked as a layer from Bitcoin which is decentralized. In the event that lightning system bombs at that point there can be numerous different frameworks that are gone for and the one that works the best will turn into the standard. In the event that you don't care for utilizing a unified stage you can simply adhere to the fundamental chain. The charges may make you not have any desire to however.

Agree. The Lightning Network as a secondary layer on top of the Bitcoin blockchain poses no threat to the cryptocurrency's decentralization whatsoever. If it were to fail, then there would be other layers or sidechains to make Bitcoin scale. The last option available would be the main chain, in case everything fails.

However, I doubt that would be the case since the Lightning Network will improve over time, to become the most decentralized scalable layer for Bitcoin yet. Therefore, I believe that the Lightning Network is the safest way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain, instead of increasing the block size over time which threatens decentralization. Just my opinion Smiley

█████████████████████████
███████▄▄▀▀███▀▀▄▄███████
████████▄███▄████████
█████▄▄█▀▀███▀▀█▄▄█████
████▀▀██▀██████▀██▀▀████
████▄█████████████▄████
███████▀███████▀███████
████▀█████████████▀████
████▄▄██▄████▄██▄▄████
█████▀▀███▀▄████▀▀█████
████████▀███▀████████
███████▀▀▄▄███▄▄▀▀███████
█████████████████████████
.
 CRYPTOGAMES 
.
 Catch the winning spirit! 
█▄░▀███▌░▄
███▄░▀█░▐██▄
▀▀▀▀▀░░░▀▀▀▀▀
████▌░▐█████▀
████░░█████
███▌░▐███▀
███░░███
██▌░▐█▀
PROGRESSIVE
      JACKPOT      
██░░▄▄
▀▀░░████▄
▄▄▄▄██▀░░▄▄
░░░▀▀█░░▀██▄
███▄░░▀▄░█▀▀
█████░░█░░▄▄█
█████░░██████
█████░░█░░▀▀█
LOW HOUSE
         EDGE         
██▄
███░░░░░░░▄▄
█▀░░░░░░░████
█▄░░░░░░░░█▀
██▄░░░░░░▄█
███▄▄░░▄██▌
██████████
█████████▌
PREMIUM VIP
 MEMBERSHIP 
DICE   ROULETTE   BLACKJACK   KENO   MINESWEEPER   VIDEO POKER   PLINKO   SLOT   LOTTERY
cryptoblazter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 421
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 13, 2018, 01:48:32 AM
 #214

Lightning Network is totally decentralized. It uses thousands of lightning nodes and channels to distribute transactions. The nodes are decentralized, no need for trusted third-party. Therefore, LN itself is decentralized.

blackhawkeye1912
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 13, 2018, 02:59:32 AM
 #215

Due to long transaction verifiation processing time of bitcoin, lightning network is developed. This network processes bitcoin tansactions through its active nodes located around the world. These nodes make the processing time lesser by almost 50%.

But, the question if this network is centralized depends on these active nodes. Are these nodes come from independent miners or from few big companies? That would determine the degree of decentralization of lightning network.
Wind_FURY
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 1797



View Profile
August 13, 2018, 06:01:27 AM
 #216

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.

Then I believe it would also prove that the Core developers of Bitcoin made the correct design decisions all along. The Bitcoin Cash community did not need to hard fork from the main chain. Bitcoin also does not urgently need bigger blocks now like many of them said 3 years ago.



That is where we differ, BTC does not need it any more (today) because many txs happens on other chains

BCH wants them all in the end, and in such a manner, that there is never such a congestion than we had in 2017 in BTC.

Bitcoin is about electronic financial solution, a system for electronic cash and of electronic store of value if you want to highlight that in a separate sentence...

Bitcoin is a medium for censorship resistance for me than a "financial solution" for an electronic cash system. It's not an insignificant consumer payments product, but an independent financial system that should be kept secure, efficient and decentralized.

If Bitcoin Cash wants to re-enable and add new OPcodes and increase to unlimited blocks, good. But leave Bitcoin alone. The Core developers have been doing a great job by being conservative and careful.


I do not want to do finger pointing.

As do I. I see both coins having their own merits. But with Bitcoin having more than Bitcoin Cash. Cool

Quote
Yes core devs have done a good job at most of the time , that is not the issue. Core devs are doing a dev job, so what would anyone expect on top? Wanting to be business developers, requirement engineers, change managers or even operational risk managers?

I do not understand what you mean. Please explain.

Quote
No, I see now that these things will come to Bitcoin Cash in an industrial manner so that institutions (having exactly same setup internally to mitigate risks) will have only one option to move forward with crypto or none, because SEC will kill any other cryptos soon.

But you do not see how Bitcoin Cash is following Ethereum's path to node centralization, scaling their network down? How would that be good for censorship resistance?

██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
.SHUFFLE.COM..███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████
████████████████████
██████████████████████
████████████████████
██████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
.
...Next Generation Crypto Casino...
hv_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2018, 07:06:47 AM
 #217

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.

Then I believe it would also prove that the Core developers of Bitcoin made the correct design decisions all along. The Bitcoin Cash community did not need to hard fork from the main chain. Bitcoin also does not urgently need bigger blocks now like many of them said 3 years ago.



That is where we differ, BTC does not need it any more (today) because many txs happens on other chains

BCH wants them all in the end, and in such a manner, that there is never such a congestion than we had in 2017 in BTC.

Bitcoin is about electronic financial solution, a system for electronic cash and of electronic store of value if you want to highlight that in a separate sentence...

Bitcoin is a medium for censorship resistance for me than a "financial solution" for an electronic cash system. It's not an insignificant consumer payments product, but an independent financial system that should be kept secure, efficient and decentralized.

If Bitcoin Cash wants to re-enable and add new OPcodes and increase to unlimited blocks, good. But leave Bitcoin alone. The Core developers have been doing a great job by being conservative and careful.


I do not want to do finger pointing.

As do I. I see both coins having their own merits. But with Bitcoin having more than Bitcoin Cash. Cool

Quote
Yes core devs have done a good job at most of the time , that is not the issue. Core devs are doing a dev job, so what would anyone expect on top? Wanting to be business developers, requirement engineers, change managers or even operational risk managers?

I do not understand what you mean. Please explain.

Quote
No, I see now that these things will come to Bitcoin Cash in an industrial manner so that institutions (having exactly same setup internally to mitigate risks) will have only one option to move forward with crypto or none, because SEC will kill any other cryptos soon.

But you do not see how Bitcoin Cash is following Ethereum's path to node centralization, scaling their network down? How would that be good for censorship resistance?

Industrial style means scaling in all relevant / needed aspects. It is not about to runnig just more raspis - not if you want to leave the nichy romantics of BTC, sorry.

You need to see how the fintecs - not only big payment processors- scale, that's a different world and decentralization will be there as well, just under big guys - not little home users. I understand all the ranting Lukes - but world is changing and the result will be cheap cash for all.

Coding is just a very minor part in that. Its about hard product delivery and stability for world wide usage. No games and tries with unready insecure LN and 2nd layers.

And no, Bitcoin Cash cannot be compared to ETH - it's main task is cheap cash - not full retarded smart contracts coded in script langs.
BCH will enable ICOs in a different way now (see the Wormhole project or others), that needs some PoW from token emitters - not getting on-chain security for free. (That's my hope), and also forces emitters to check the laws, since only Bitcoin  on-chain will be SEC compliant.

LN and ICOs will get a hefty hit now here: https://news.bitcoin.com/us-government-to-aggressively-pursue-unregulated-services-around-the-world, and I expect more things hitting the romantic soon .

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Fix real world issues: Check out b-vote.com
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
AldermanCharlie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 13, 2018, 07:18:20 AM
 #218

There's a mathmetical measure for "decentralization", you can't tell how exactly centralized it is by looking.

Finalfantasy2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 29
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 13, 2018, 07:21:04 AM
 #219

There's a mathmetical measure for "decentralization", you can't tell how exactly centralized it is by looking.


Obviously, to be exact, one would have to calculate a number.

However, it is trivial to observe qualitatively that the network is quite centralized, and this is only the larval form. If a meaningful amount of capital was actually involved, it would be much more centralized.

hv_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2018, 07:31:50 AM
 #220

There's a mathmetical measure for "decentralization", you can't tell how exactly centralized it is by looking.


Obviously, to be exact, one would have to calculate a number.

However, it is trivial to observe qualitatively that the network is quite centralized, and this is only the larval form. If a meaningful amount of capital was actually involved, it would be much more centralized.



There is a good analogon in physics. A  3 body problem is just solvable (very hard!)  - not  a  4 body problem!

And the BFT threshold of 33%

So having 4+ (equally) independent actors  is a good start.


And pls lookup Nash Equilibrium

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Fix real world issues: Check out b-vote.com
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!