Lighting Network is a BANK'S TRAP?

[Biomech]

I always rather suspected the Visa organization, more than banks

It makes it possible for them to play in the crypto world. Which, frankly, will cause a rise in value.

As for Mike Hearn being 'run off', well... that's what happens when all you do is whine and cry.

I think Lightning and similar side/off chain proposals make a lot of sense for small transactions.

Basically, if you want BTC to remain a small pool of big fish, then you leave it as is. OTOH, changing the protocol itself is a dangerous game. So why NOT build on top of it?

Yes, there's a degree of trust. Search through my posts from 5 years ago and you'll see my position on that has not changed. A trustless system is a great concept. It works, too, as long as humans are not involved. Bitcoin had escrow services at least as early as 2010. Do you think that was because they weren't needed?

LN makes small transactions possible, which makes BTC accessible to the masses. They are mostly too busy getting on with their lives to care about extreme security. Very good security would be an improvement in their daily lives. This, in turn, will lead to wider adoption, making the main BTC chain much more valuable in the long run.

Is it the only possible solution to scaling? No. Has anything else been proposed that would allow bitcoin to approach even 10 percent of what VISA does daily? Not that I'm aware of. If so, please enlighten me. But as it stands, BTC is really only good for either large purchases or non time sensitive purchases. You cannot compete in the world of daily business on that scale. BTC has caught the interest of the mainstream, finally, and we're gonna shoot it in the foot over who's dick is longer. Come on, people. LN does NOT stop other development, it doesn't HARM the main chain, and it just might work. If you're bitching about it and not actively developing something better, you're just bitching.

[1715012436]

1715012436

[1715012436]

1715012436

[1715012436]

1715012436

[Kprawn]

Indeed. Not as easy as simply increasing the block size, for example.

100% agree but they have had 8 years to come up with a solution so the LN solution they
picked in the end looks like a case of problem-reaction-solutions to me and we are being
lead around by the nose if we let them.

if "On-Block" brought people to Bitcoin then LN "Off-Block" should have them leaving

There is no need for a debate.  These people won't listen anyway.  Let them have their stupid Lightning.  They will find out when nobody comes to play.  Since they ran off Mike Hearn, another 22 Billion (Bitcoin Cash) left their platform.  Counting alts - so many billions more are no longer interested in what Bitcoin has to offer.  LN is pure stupidity.  It is too late.  Each day more leaves their broken platform.  The market will 'vote'.  Has voted.  Let these guys talk all day long.  Finally, their market share will be zero and they will have all their good reasons to consider by themselves.  Only the least technically capable remain as 'lovers of Bitcoin'.  Of course, and a few guys at the top who are determined to control Bitcoin via LN and other privatization schemes.

Once the Lightning Network is fully implemented, much of that money will filter back into Bitcoin, because most of these

coins will not be able to compete. {Most of the money that floated their way was people who got sick of high miners fees

and slow confirmations, and now things has changed again.} A lot of the problems was directly attributed to someone

spamming the Legacy network and creating this problem. Since SegWit has gained traction, most spamming was reduced.

{Spamming SegWit is also more expensive to get the same results} 

Lots of dirty tactics being used to stall or stop Bitcoin, but we always counter these attacks with better technology. 

[NightMar_1St]

I think We can create a new coin to help comercial or business
BTC too expensive and too long to trade

[MkGregor]

Why do you need to be in the top 15% of holders? You can make a node and open channels with any amount you want, there is no lower limit. Again the whole argument is based on misleading you.

Why to be top 15%? Makes no sense for me. Do you think that it will be only the top 15% who can earn on the (really small) transaction fees of the lightning network? If there will be fees at all in the beginning? Guys are running LN nodes on Raspberry PIs and opening channels with the amount of 0,01 or 0,05 BTC just for testing purposes now, so to start a node and be the part of the network is not a big deal at the moment. Maybe in the future there will be a need for big and reliable nodes to route the transactions with a high amount of BTC, but to maintain a bigger hub will cost real money and this will make the node to charge you higher fees compared to the average (or compared to 0 fees). If they will charge higher fees, the protocol will search for another route where your transaction will arrive with less fees. Or, if it's a really higher amount (not a coffee or a weekend shopping) and no hurry, the good old onchain transaction will be also an option still. So there's nothing with banks and giant nodes but an onion type network that will have real possibilities.

Not sure, if I understand correctly, than you have to have enough BTC in your node to pass the transaction. Which means, there have to be certain amount of money locked in for the node to be useful. Of course, you can open a node with 0.01BTC...And than WHAT? Nothing, you don't have enough money to route any transaction, which is over your pre-funded amount.


Let me be clear here - I'm not for and not against Bitcoin or Lighting network - I'm not invested. I don't like Bitcoin, I don't have Bitcoin, and I'm holding, trading and using everything else, but Bitcoin.

No, wait, actually I do use Bitcoin sometimes on exchanges, to buy a currency, which I can't buy with ETH - I lay my hands on Bitcoin for just about five minutes.

I believe, that Bitcoin is so outdated, that even the Lighting network cannot save it, too late.
BUT.
That does not mean that I am not interested to UNDERSTAND, what is going on, and I value an input of everyone in this conversation.

[TheQuin]

Not sure, if I understand correctly, than you have to have enough BTC in your node to pass the transaction. Which means, there have to be certain amount of money locked in for the node to be useful. Of course, you can open a node with 0.01BTC...And than WHAT? Nothing, you don't have enough money to route any transaction, which is over your pre-funded amount.

The main point of LN is to make small transactions possible. There will be many nodes on the network to choose from so the idea that somehow "the top 15%" will be able to monopolise it is just unjustified scaremongering.

Let me be clear here - I'm not for and not against Bitcoin or Lighting network - I'm not invested. I don't like Bitcoin, I don't have Bitcoin, and I'm holding, trading and using everything else, but Bitcoin.

No, wait, actually I do use Bitcoin sometimes on exchanges, to buy a currency, which I can't buy with ETH - I lay my hands on Bitcoin for just about five minutes.

I believe, that Bitcoin is so outdated, that even the Lighting network cannot save it, too late.
BUT.
That does not mean that I am not interested to UNDERSTAND, what is going on, and I value an input of everyone in this conversation.

If you're really interested then what is really going on is that Bitcoin is moving on to the next stage with layer 2 functionality. Don't get bogged down in the arguments directly about LN, they are largely irrelevant. The point is that adding new technology on top of the existing blockchain is the natural evolution. If LN comes up against issues then solutions will be found or even a better LN 2.0 will come along. There are those that want to stay in the past and throw out all these scare stories about LN to distract from the fact they don't have any solutions to mass adoption themselves.

This is a good analogy https://medium.com/@melik_87377/lightning-network-enables-unicast-transactions-in-bitcoin-lightning-is-bitcoins-tcp-ip-stack-8ec1d42c14f5

[bitart]

Why do you need to be in the top 15% of holders? You can make a node and open channels with any amount you want, there is no lower limit. Again the whole argument is based on misleading you.

Why to be top 15%? Makes no sense for me. Do you think that it will be only the top 15% who can earn on the (really small) transaction fees of the lightning network? If there will be fees at all in the beginning? Guys are running LN nodes on Raspberry PIs and opening channels with the amount of 0,01 or 0,05 BTC just for testing purposes now, so to start a node and be the part of the network is not a big deal at the moment. Maybe in the future there will be a need for big and reliable nodes to route the transactions with a high amount of BTC, but to maintain a bigger hub will cost real money and this will make the node to charge you higher fees compared to the average (or compared to 0 fees). If they will charge higher fees, the protocol will search for another route where your transaction will arrive with less fees. Or, if it's a really higher amount (not a coffee or a weekend shopping) and no hurry, the good old onchain transaction will be also an option still. So there's nothing with banks and giant nodes but an onion type network that will have real possibilities.

Not sure, if I understand correctly, than you have to have enough BTC in your node to pass the transaction. Which means, there have to be certain amount of money locked in for the node to be useful. Of course, you can open a node with 0.01BTC...And than WHAT? Nothing, you don't have enough money to route any transaction, which is over your pre-funded amount.


Let me be clear here - I'm not for and not against Bitcoin or Lighting network - I'm not invested. I don't like Bitcoin, I don't have Bitcoin, and I'm holding, trading and using everything else, but Bitcoin.

No, wait, actually I do use Bitcoin sometimes on exchanges, to buy a currency, which I can't buy with ETH - I lay my hands on Bitcoin for just about five minutes.

I believe, that Bitcoin is so outdated, that even the Lighting network cannot save it, too late.
BUT.
That does not mean that I am not interested to UNDERSTAND, what is going on, and I value an input of everyone in this conversation.

It was just a quick example to show that there's no need to open channels with 1-2 BTC, it's possible to open channels with less, 0.01 or similar for TESTING purposes, which is the current status of the LN on the mainnet. This is just for test the code, to start and receive small transactions, to test the network, and find the possible bugs. Even a small Raspberry PI is enough for this NOW.
But when this whole thing will go live and start to work as expected, there will be a real need for channels to be opened with a lot of BTC if you want to let larger transactions to find your LN hub, or if you want to serve a lot of small transactions (in one way). If you can set up a channel where the transactions are going in both directions, then you will never have to close the channel because of insufficient liquidity. As far as I see now, LN will not be the channel of the high amount transactions but the lot of small transactions, so if someone wants to only participate with smaller channels, it's possible (but we'll see if it worths it on the long run to open a channel with really small amount).

[brickafterbrickwalldpt]

What is the point of spreading such a huge amount of FUD? People who support Bitcoin Cash are trying to convince others that both SegWit and Lightning Network are huge threats to the Bitcoin independence. That is obviously unreasonable. Nobody is forced to use Lightning Network. In fact, it can be only use for payments up to somewhere around 0.04 BTC. You can setup your own LN node, nobody forces you to use a specific one. I don't see any connection to the current banking system.