let me just butt-in to clarify things in regards to the danny hamilton vs anti-cen debate about LN
but as I understand it if a lightning wallet transmits an out of date transaction to the network then the banking hub can claim all the collatoral in the channel
You have MANY false assumptions about how Lightning Network works. These false assumptions lead you to post a lot of misleading nonsense. This is just one more example of that.
because danny hates it unless people use the correct buzzwords (buzzwords that are meaningless to average joe i might add) which is where some of this community fail to understand that making up new buzzwords to sound cool actually causes more issues than helps.. as proven by this topic and dannys instant reaction to attack someone for not being technical enough with the buzzwording..
it is especially brutal when not using the right buzzword danny and others then argues too much on the bad use of buzzwords rather then the underlying issue your trying to communicate.
but atleast there are some people that can think out side of the box to know what is trying to be said
anyway..
lets rebuttle some of danny's comments
Thing is who do you call if it was not your fault
Why isn't it your fault? Take some personal responsibility for your actions
*. If you publish a stale state, it
IS your fault.
That being said... You can just call the person/business that you opened the channel with in the first place.
so now people are suppose to do due diligence and KYC who they connect to.. i call that a barrier to routing
i guess LN's "auto pilot" is less than auto.
seems all of LN's promises of limitless fast, cheap, barrierless promises start falling apart.
(as ill explain a few of those fallings apart if you keep reading)
and how can you compete against bankers rules since they have full access to the protocol that won't be available to normal wallets.
More nonsense. The protocol is public. Use open source implementations.
yes its open source.. it is soo open source infact, that the hubs('banks') can tweak their personal node to have the upper hand...
after all. in any contract. whoever signs first is usually the one that has more to lose/will get treated worse
a hub could set it so the user signs first. and thus the hub 'could' refuses to sign their part.. forcing the user to send a stale tx because its the only fully signed tx they have..
to which the hub then signs the new tx (the new one the user signed but hub refused to show sig), hub broadcasts it. just to get to CSV revoke the users (stale)tx so that the hub can take the collateral
offchain is full of flaws.. after all.. the whole purpose of blockchain is that thousands of people audit and no single point of attack.. but in LN there is no community audit.
its just you vs the hub while inchannel. so they can mess with you, (and yes you can mess with them).
danny can you not remember many years ago. lesson one of why bitcoin and blockchain was so revolutionary in the concept of currency. come on think about it.. if transactions could be trusted peer to peer without a blockchain. without miners. without decentralised checks.. there would be no need for bitcoin..
Down the road I see the hubs being attacked if they start taking peoples wages
They can't take what isn't given to them.
i beg to differ..
ill link you an image.. and here is a hint
purple, red, green and orange are all 1 person(1 person, 4 nodes) attacking blue to double their money.
https://i.imgur.com/9FMMkdK.pngand as you will see it is possible to rob people, simple by using LN's biggest feature against people
and they are all single points of failure so looking at the LN map
If there is more than
ONE, then (by definition) it can't be a
SINGLE point of failure.
wow danny.. i can see anti-cen may not have the linguistics perfect. but your missing the context just to be a grammar nazi
whats going to happen if one of these big hubs gets taken down by Annon
Nothing. They just won't be included in the route.
and i feel anti-cens point is.. if they are taken out. then all the linked users ar then made to close channels and open new channels.
meaning:
1. sudden onchain mempool growth of users broadcasting tx's of a hub that had hundreds of channels that are redundant but have FUNDS IN THEM
- hint its not a simple, as you put it 'nothing'.. meaning you think "oh well lets move on in 0.01seconds... no harm, no loss no foul, no delay"
2. users having to pay onchain fee's to close and open fresh channels with a different hub to move the funds from the redundant channel to the new channel
3. imagine a DDoSer purposefully attacking the most popular hubs. as soon as they are taken down. it moves onto the next popular one
its not a split second operation to close a channel and then open a new FUNDED one.. (yes i said funded, meaning onchain delays/costs)
and to pre-empt obvious rebuttles
yes nodes will already have more than one channel open. but in a network of say 1 million users. having 2-3 routes is not enough for a hop model to b "well connected". thus having 30-100 channels open is not cheap or easy for avrage joe. (EG if someone only wants to risk $60 in LN then each channel would only have $0.60-$2 in it) meaning it limits spending per route. thus again hop model doesnt work
so thats where banker hubs get established where users only have 1-2 channels where one of them is a central hub(bank) that way users risking $60 only have to split $30 between them and the bank and them and another friend/relative/person. to allow a bit of 'play' in a differnt direction(route)
pre-empt obvious rebuttle
i guess the next empty reply is that not all channels need funding upfront. and you'll probably say nodes will set up 30-100 channels unfunded and only fund them when they need to spend funds in that particular route.
well ask yourself where do the funds come from.. oh yea onchain transactions.
oh and lets not forget that if connecting to another node unfunded then it opens up DDoS risks to occur without penalty because there is no funds at risk for the attacker..
which brings me onto the other problem. needing an entrance fee(yes LN devs have this concept) of needing to be funded to then lay out penalty fee's and also to know how much the channel participants can/wish to reserve for themselves and also to use for routing of others, etc which all dips into the $60 a average joe might want to risk in LN
(P.S i have run many scenarios, far beyond the devs. who have only ran basic "do they connect" tests.. not real world lifestyle/usage in the real world scenarios.. and yes the devs do not give a crap about costs/how often channels need to close and open. they will just blame users for not cautiously learning for themselves or depositing too much/to little or other excuses about how users themselves decided x,y,z so problems are not devs fault.)
afterall someone point out a flaw. and the reply was "
*Why isn't it your fault? Take some personal responsibility for your actions."
