Is the Lightning Network centralized?

[AldermanCharlie]

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.

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.

[1713915563]

1713915563

[1713915563]

1713915563

[1713915563]

1713915563

[hongthoa498156@gmail.com]

Having a huge block size is very bad for any cryptocurrency nowadays. It increases the level of spam attacks on the network and increases centralization as storage and bandwidth costs increase over time. As such, less nodes would be able to maintain the network, as most people won't be able to cover such high costs. The real deal, as you said earlier, is the verification process.

[Wind_FURY]

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.

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.

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.

But the design decision that the Bitcoin Core developers took is for the network to scale up, not scale down. If as much as possible they can make Bitcoin Core software run in the slowest of computers without giving away performance, then they will.

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.

Censorship resistance is the goal, decentralization and security are the means. The goal is not to compete against Fintech.

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.

No one said that Lightning will be the winning solution, but what did the big blocks, on-chain scaling in Bitcoin Cash bring?

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.

You did not understand. What I was telling you is Bitcoin Cash is following Ethereum in node centralization because of blockchain bloat.

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 .

I will not read anything that comes from that site. It is either Roger Ver's propaganda or biased opinion.

[bitfocus]

nope, Lightning network is not centralized, according to the white-paper.

[hv_]

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.

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.

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.

But the design decision that the Bitcoin Core developers took is for the network to scale up, not scale down. If as much as possible they can make Bitcoin Core software run in the slowest of computers without giving away performance, then they will.

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.

Censorship resistance is the goal, decentralization and security are the means. The goal is not to compete against Fintech.

Not compete - use their tech and knowledge to be fast & save on network level.

There is no measure for decentralization, but there is open competition and the Nash Equilibrium - fine for having 'enough' of it.

> Bitcoin runs about 10 years with that setup, no matter to change that ( try to abstract size, as done in fractal search and you see that 'many' big data-centers looks similar to 'many' small nodes)

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.

No one said that Lightning will be the winning solution, but what did the big blocks, on-chain scaling in Bitcoin Cash bring?

Steady bespoke & trusted low fees for ever - way enough excess capacity to on-board lots of businesses, looking for plan-ability and no further future congestions.

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.

You did not understand. What I was telling you is Bitcoin Cash is following Ethereum in node centralization because of blockchain bloat.

A bloating for cash TX is not same as for smart contracts - but anyhow see my comment on node sizes I expect for BCH.

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 .

I will not read anything that comes from that site. It is either Roger Ver's propaganda or biased opinion.

This source is providing all sorts of news, it is not an echo-chamber.  Feel free to execute your right to freedom of choice.

 

[Wind_FURY]

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.

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.

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.

But the design decision that the Bitcoin Core developers took is for the network to scale up, not scale down. If as much as possible they can make Bitcoin Core software run in the slowest of computers without giving away performance, then they will.

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.

Censorship resistance is the goal, decentralization and security are the means. The goal is not to compete against Fintech.

Not compete - use their tech and knowledge to be fast & save on network level.

There is no measure for decentralization, but there is open competition and the Nash Equilibrium - fine for having 'enough' of it.

> Bitcoin runs about 10 years with that setup, no matter to change that ( try to abstract size, as done in fractal search and you see that 'many' big data-centers looks similar to 'many' small nodes)

But we should always remember that data-centers or the "cloud" will always be someone else's computer, not yours that you, yourself control.

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.

No one said that Lightning will be the winning solution, but what did the big blocks, on-chain scaling in Bitcoin Cash bring?

Steady bespoke & trusted low fees for ever - way enough excess capacity to on-board lots of businesses, looking for plan-ability and no further future congestions.

Forever? Do you believe that 32mb of space would be enough if, by an act of the Lord Jesus, Bitcoin Cash becomes a world reserve currency? If not, then it hard forks again?

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.

You did not understand. What I was telling you is Bitcoin Cash is following Ethereum in node centralization because of blockchain bloat.

A bloating for cash TX is not same as for smart contracts - but anyhow see my comment on node sizes I expect for BCH.

If Bitcoin Cash blocks become as big as Ethereum blocks and usage increases you don't believe that the blockchain's size will increase exponentially? How would bigger blocks help in block propagation? The nodes using slower bandwidth and weaker machines will have a very bad time keeping up syncing with the rest of the network. Ethereum users are already a victim of this.

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 .

I will not read anything that comes from that site. It is either Roger Ver's propaganda or biased opinion.

This source is providing all sorts of news, it is not an echo-chamber.  Feel free to execute your right to freedom of choice.

 

Freedom of choice is good but if the other choice is propaganda without a good technical argument then why should we listen to it?

[Zin-Zang]

Freedom of choice is good but if the other choice is propaganda without a good technical argument then why should we listen to it?

Hmm, the ability to tell reality from fantasy is paramount in keeping your ass out of jail.
That is a good reason IMO.  

I already warned you here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg40421240#msg40421240

** If your hub processes a transaction where you send LN funds overseas and at the end ,
when those LN funds are redeem for bitcoin and those bitcoins are exchanged to fiat or physical items,
then you just became a money launder according to US Law. **
Do I agree with this insane authority the world governments have given themselves , hell no,
but I do recognize it will get someone throw in jail for ignoring them, answer is yes.

This speech is FinCEN Director Kenneth A. Blanco : https://www.fincen.gov/news/speeches/prepared-remarks-fincen-director-kenneth-blanco-delivered-2018-chicago-kent-block

First, as our March 2013 guidance indicates, FinCEN’s rules apply to all transactions involving money transmission—including the acceptance and transmission of value that substitutes for currency, which includes virtual currency.  Thus, our regulations cover both transactions where the parties are exchanging fiat and convertible virtual currency, but also to transactions from one virtual currency to another virtual currency.

Further, businesses providing anonymizing services (commonly called “mixers” or “tumblers”), which seek to conceal the source of the transmission of virtual currency, are money transmitters when they accept and transmit convertible virtual currency, and, therefore, have regulatory obligations under the BSA.

In short, individuals and entities engaged in the business of accepting and transmitting physical currency or convertible virtual currency from one person to another or to another location are money transmitters subject to the AML/CFT requirements of the BSA and its implementing regulations

It is important to understand that these requirements apply equally to domestic and foreign-located convertible virtual currency money transmitters, even if the foreign located entity has no physical presence in the United States, as long as it does business in whole or substantial part within the United States.

All he is doing is confirming what I already told you would happen.
Now good luck seeing that this is reality not fantasy.  

[hv_]

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.

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.

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.

But the design decision that the Bitcoin Core developers took is for the network to scale up, not scale down. If as much as possible they can make Bitcoin Core software run in the slowest of computers without giving away performance, then they will.

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.

Censorship resistance is the goal, decentralization and security are the means. The goal is not to compete against Fintech.

Not compete - use their tech and knowledge to be fast & save on network level.

There is no measure for decentralization, but there is open competition and the Nash Equilibrium - fine for having 'enough' of it.

> Bitcoin runs about 10 years with that setup, no matter to change that ( try to abstract size, as done in fractal search and you see that 'many' big data-centers looks similar to 'many' small nodes)

But we should always remember that data-centers or the "cloud" will always be someone else's computer, not yours that you, yourself control.

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.

No one said that Lightning will be the winning solution, but what did the big blocks, on-chain scaling in Bitcoin Cash bring?

Steady bespoke & trusted low fees for ever - way enough excess capacity to on-board lots of businesses, looking for plan-ability and no further future congestions.

Forever? Do you believe that 32mb of space would be enough if, by an act of the Lord Jesus, Bitcoin Cash becomes a world reserve currency? If not, then it hard forks again?

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.

You did not understand. What I was telling you is Bitcoin Cash is following Ethereum in node centralization because of blockchain bloat.

A bloating for cash TX is not same as for smart contracts - but anyhow see my comment on node sizes I expect for BCH.

If Bitcoin Cash blocks become as big as Ethereum blocks and usage increases you don't believe that the blockchain's size will increase exponentially? How would bigger blocks help in block propagation? The nodes using slower bandwidth and weaker machines will have a very bad time keeping up syncing with the rest of the network. Ethereum users are already a victim of this.

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 .

I will not read anything that comes from that site. It is either Roger Ver's propaganda or biased opinion.

This source is providing all sorts of news, it is not an echo-chamber.  Feel free to execute your right to freedom of choice.

 

Freedom of choice is good but if the other choice is propaganda without a good technical argument then why should we listen to it?

Propaganda is everywhere - even here

Technical stuff  is there to help us to be more efficient - no matter who gives it to you. If you think you need to run your own little node to keep entire Bitcoin System secure, I say you are victim of propaganda already.

There is no ideal solution - but simple solutions are good to be adopted and easy to scale. If many others doing that safely for majority of small guys like us - that's the better way imo.

If you feel you need to 'participate' to make it more secure, think big and show your human PoW -> make Bitcoin easy usable for all,  so that with a few small users some bigger come in running the expensive stuff for the smaller -  but be humble and try to see that you cannot help much a high-tech network to scale with small nodes.

[Wind_FURY]

Freedom of choice is good but if the other choice is propaganda without a good technical argument then why should we listen to it?

Hmm, the ability to tell reality from fantasy is paramount in keeping your ass out of jail.
That is a good reason IMO.  

I already warned you here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg40421240#msg40421240

That is another one of your propaganda. That does not scare anyone.

** If your hub processes a transaction where you send LN funds overseas and at the end ,
when those LN funds are redeem for bitcoin and those bitcoins are exchanged to fiat or physical items,
then you just became a money launder according to US Law. **
Do I agree with this insane authority the world governments have given themselves , hell no,
but I do recognize it will get someone throw in jail for ignoring them, answer is yes.

This speech is FinCEN Director Kenneth A. Blanco : https://www.fincen.gov/news/speeches/prepared-remarks-fincen-director-kenneth-blanco-delivered-2018-chicago-kent-block

But how was the different from a regular on-chain transaction? He clearly said that you will be caught if Bitcoins are exchanged to fiat or physical items. Good luck to that because the Lightning Network helps in making our transactions more private.

First, as our March 2013 guidance indicates, FinCEN’s rules apply to all transactions involving money transmission—including the acceptance and transmission of value that substitutes for currency, which includes virtual currency.  Thus, our regulations cover both transactions where the parties are exchanging fiat and convertible virtual currency, but also to transactions from one virtual currency to another virtual currency.

Further, businesses providing anonymizing services (commonly called “mixers” or “tumblers”), which seek to conceal the source of the transmission of virtual currency, are money transmitters when they accept and transmit convertible virtual currency, and, therefore, have regulatory obligations under the BSA.

In short, individuals and entities engaged in the business of accepting and transmitting physical currency or convertible virtual currency from one person to another or to another location are money transmitters subject to the AML/CFT requirements of the BSA and its implementing regulations

It is important to understand that these requirements apply equally to domestic and foreign-located convertible virtual currency money transmitters, even if the foreign located entity has no physical presence in the United States, as long as it does business in whole or substantial part within the United States.

All he is doing is confirming what I already told you would happen.
Now good luck seeing that this is reality not fantasy.  

Go report Lightning to the FBI, and good luck in YOUR fantasy.

[Zin-Zang]

@Wind_Fury

LOL, there really is no hope for you.

Enjoy your orange jumpsuit.  

Later.

[Wind_FURY]

@Wind_Fury

LOL, there really is no hope for you.

Enjoy your orange jumpsuit.  

Later.

No hope for me, for what? To dump Bitcoin, buy the altcoin Bitcoin Cash, and then start following it and support Roger Ver, Craig Wright, and Jihan Wu that it is "the real Bitcoin"? No thank you. I will be fine wearing my orange jumpsuit.

[liseff3]

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?

Honestly, to date I still don't understand about the character of Lightning-Network, Is it Centralized or Decentralized? But I have heard, that Lightning-Network is very good to implement especially for transaction purposes. By utilizing Lightning-Network, reportedly can carry out transactions with the cost of ZERO (but whether or not it's true or not). And I also heard the bad news, that by utilizing the Lightning Network it was rumored that it could damage the bitcoin ecosystem (this too, I didn't know the truth).

[Ava Duvall]

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.

YOu explained it so simply, and straight to the point. best answer so far.

[jowabol]

I have been perusing and concentrate a considerable measure about this thing. Lightning system usage sounds a smart thought to everybody as it can spare high exchange expenses. In any case, since the two gatherings straightforwardly execute with each other then I can state that it is a brought together in that way. There are still inquiries that are flying up in my mind like there are as yet expected weaknesses that may understanding, at that point how might we settle that issue?

From my understanding, Lightning Network is a unified stage that is worked as a layer from Bitcoin which is decentralized. On the off chance that lightning system flops 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 concentrated stage you can simply adhere to the principle chain. The charges may make you not have any desire to however.

I think lightning system is centralization, since this lightning system is a product that isn't a piece of blockchain framework, yet in the event that bitcoin convention applies lightning system, it can incorporate worldwide money related exchange volume speedier, and less expensive cost.

as I would see it the key is in "who can run a lightning hub/center point?" as long as it is anyone who needs (which is the situation and now there is motivator to run a hub) at that point I don't perceive any sort of centralization in this. you are as yet associating with a distributed system and making an exchange on it. much the same as some other p2p organize there might be peers by banks, government, shady individuals, ordinary people,... yet, the good thing that I comprehend about LN is that the handing-off hubs don't think about the birthplace and goal of the exchanges they get, they simply pass it along and know it doesn't have a place with them.

[JanVanHellsing]

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?

Honestly, to date I still don't understand about the character of Lightning-Network, Is it Centralized or Decentralized? But I have heard, that Lightning-Network is very good to implement especially for transaction purposes. By utilizing Lightning-Network, reportedly can carry out transactions with the cost of ZERO (but whether or not it's true or not). And I also heard the bad news, that by utilizing the Lightning Network it was rumored that it could damage the bitcoin ecosystem (this too, I didn't know the truth).

I also have difficulty following this debate regarding centralized vs decentralized. But since there are some people with deep knowledge maybe someone can explain what seems to be the problem with adoption. The last time I read an update about lightning there were only a few vendors that had it implemented. Is that such a hurdle from a technical point of view or what seems to be the slow adoption?

[Andrey13101991]

Do not question the work of a fully decentralized or fully centralized system. This is the choice between off-network private transactions and off-network second-level transactions with a system that does not require trust.

[Abiky]

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.

That's the multi-million-dollar question. The level of decentralization of the Lightning Network will depend on how many independent nodes there would be worldwide. Because if many nodes are dominated by a single company, then the LN would be effectively centralized. However, if it's easy and cheap to open/close a channel at will, then anyone could participate as a node for the Lightning Network, making it a decentralized scalable solution for Bitcoin.

There's still a long way to go before the LN becomes stable and practical for the mainstream world. Thus, I believe that it's too early to determine whenever the Lightning Network is centralized or not. Improvements will come along the way, and adoption will spread across the world for sure. Therefore, if successful, Bitcoin could've reached a major milestone in scalability. Just my opinion

[Wintersoldier]

From my understanding, 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. If you don't like using a centralized platform you can always stick to the main chain. The fees might make you not want to though.

It is just an extension for people to used Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency in the market. It would support the system of Bitcoin by introducing it form many people and it might help for the development and the further improvement of the system of Bitcoin in terms of transaction and dealing with investments.

[Itcher]

I think it is centralized, otherwise how can I protect multiple transactions? so we're back to centralization again

[pooya87]

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.

That's the multi-million-dollar question. The level of decentralization of the Lightning Network will depend on how many independent nodes there would be worldwide. Because if many nodes are dominated by a single company, then the LN would be effectively centralized. However, if it's easy and cheap to open/close a channel at will, then anyone could participate as a node for the Lightning Network, making it a decentralized scalable solution for Bitcoin.

There's still a long way to go before the LN becomes stable and practical for the mainstream world. Thus, I believe that it's too early to determine whenever the Lightning Network is centralized or not. Improvements will come along the way, and adoption will spread across the world for sure. Therefore, if successful, Bitcoin could've reached a major milestone in scalability. Just my opinion

the same arguments can be made about bitcoin nodes! on this network if we have more nodes run by individuals from different parts of the world, as spreed wide as possible, then we have a more decentralized network. and if we have more centralized nodes run by corporations it will be more centralized.

but LN has the benefit that you have the possibility to now earn something from running a node! before this you just ran a bitcoin node if you wanted to contribute to the network and benefit from having a full verifying node. but now if you run an LN node you can buy some small amount of satoshi. so i guess we can say if bitcoin nodes are decentralized LN nodes will be too, even more because of the incentive.