Lightning Network Discussion Thread

[Rath_]

This was my first impression of what the Lightning Network was developed for and that bigger transactions would still be done on-chain. In your view, would you say 1 bitcoin is a micro transaction?

For me, it isn't. Even developers are aware that keeping large amount of bitcoins on the LN is a risky idea. I don't see anything wrong in opening channels with large amount of BTC. Their owners must be aware that they might lose their money and they can't send all of it it to because split-payments are still not implemented (the amount of BTC in channels opened with other people limits them).

Oh, I almost forgot. Currently, you can send only about 0.04 BTC at once, so 1 BTC LN transactions are not possible anyway.

But I believe if there are enough connections among nodes in the network, routing payments will still go through but maybe with slight delays?

As long as there are enough connections and funds in the channels then small delays (still lower than the time between each mined block) might occur.

[1713943848]

1713943848

[1713943848]

1713943848

[1713943848]

1713943848

[1713943848]

1713943848

[1713943848]

1713943848

[gentlemand]

I had a whirl with the testnet version of Eclair on that Starbloqs website or whatever it was. Couldn't get it to work. I just tried the full fat version with a channel that was claiming to be active and well connected. No dice.

I think I'll go away until it's brainless. Are there plans to make it brainless?

As it stands I don't see how this would transform my life, but I would've said that about BTC itself too at one point.

[vapourminer]

I had a whirl with the testnet version of Eclair on that Starbloqs website or whatever it was. Couldn't get it to work. I just tried the full fat version with a channel that was claiming to be active and well connected. No dice.

I think I'll go away until it's brainless. Are there plans to make it brainless?

brainless is my middle name. guess ill have to give it a whirl and see what happens.

[buwaytress]

If we say that the Lightning Network is a 2cnd layer application, targeted at micro transactions, would we clearly define what constitutes a micro transaction first? I recently saw individual channels that are funded by +/- 37 bitcoins. 

This was my first impression of what the Lightning Network was developed for and that bigger transactions would still be done on-chain. In your view, would you say 1 bitcoin is a micro transaction?

In fact, my very very first recollection of hearing Lightning was how it could be used to make sub-satoshi payments (less than 1 satoshi), if I recall, it was a discussion about what happened when 1 satoshi was worth more than 1 cent or more, so I actually only came to know about LN being off-chain and for micropayments a bit later.

I think, personally, a micro transaction for me is anything that would be worth around the min fee in coins I'd pay for an on-chain tx. This is around 141 satoshis for me now. Though I suppose paying 141 or 10% fee for a 1,400 sat spend is probably a better gauge of what should be micro.

Blockstream goods are all under $3. Maybe that's their idea of what's micro?

[gentlemand]

In fact, my very very first recollection of hearing Lightning was how it could be used to make sub-satoshi payments (less than 1 satoshi), if I recall, it was a discussion about what happened when 1 satoshi was worth more than 1 cent or more, so I actually only came to know about LN being off-chain and for micropayments a bit later.

I think, personally, a micro transaction for me is anything that would be worth around the min fee in coins I'd pay for an on-chain tx. This is around 141 satoshis for me now. Though I suppose paying 141 or 10% fee for a 1,400 sat spend is probably a better gauge of what should be micro.

Blockstream goods are all under $3. Maybe that's their idea of what's micro?

Can anyone point me to some good run downs of where micropayments will transform things?

Right now micro payment to me appears to be asking for payment for something that was previously free that I don't value anyway that I'd rather go without than pay for such as articles or vids. I suppose there is that much fabled coffee.

I would've thought machine to machine stuff is where lightning networks will end up shining.

[buwaytress]

In fact, my very very first recollection of hearing Lightning was how it could be used to make sub-satoshi payments (less than 1 satoshi), if I recall, it was a discussion about what happened when 1 satoshi was worth more than 1 cent or more, so I actually only came to know about LN being off-chain and for micropayments a bit later.

I think, personally, a micro transaction for me is anything that would be worth around the min fee in coins I'd pay for an on-chain tx. This is around 141 satoshis for me now. Though I suppose paying 141 or 10% fee for a 1,400 sat spend is probably a better gauge of what should be micro.

Blockstream goods are all under $3. Maybe that's their idea of what's micro?

Can anyone point me to some good run downs of where micropayments will transform things?

Right now micro payment to me appears to be asking for payment for something that was previously free that I don't value anyway that I'd rather go without than pay for such as articles or vids. I suppose there is that much fabled coffee.

I would've thought machine to machine stuff is where lightning networks will end up shining.

Maybe this is relevant, maybe it isn't, but up until 2015, I worked for many years in countries whose economies have been described as broken or failing. Because of the absolute value of goods there, I worked with entire communities that lived on micropayments on day to day basis. Mobile phone credit top ups? Tea/sugar/milk for the week? Daily groceries. Painkillers. Soap and shampoo, detergent - these all come in small sachets less than $0.01 in absolute value. Just some of the goods I remember every camp, every shop, every rural stall stocked up in the Southern hemisphere. Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Sudan.

I saw how mobile-based micropayments systems did wonders for people. They couldn't carry cash much, or didn't earn much, but they paid with credits on their phone for these daily goods. You can read about how Mpesa changed a lot of lives in Kenya (I had the pleasure of using it myself) and Bitcoin startups like Bitpesa are following in the footsteps of microfinance. Edit: I forgot to add a link to read: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/africa/mpesa-10th-anniversary/index.html

Maybe I'm wrong, but I saw some of that mirrored in Lightning Network. Couple it with mesh networking or even satellite use in areas where there's no Internet... I don't know.

[gentlemand]

Maybe this is relevant, maybe it isn't,

It is. That all makes a great deal of sense. I was thinking like the fat cracker that I am. All too easy to forget that what's a cool idea in decadenceville may elevate living standards for the many elsewhere.

[Anon136]

If we say that the Lightning Network is a 2cnd layer application, targeted at micro transactions, would we clearly define what constitutes a micro transaction first? I recently saw individual channels that are funded by +/- 37 bitcoins.  

This was my first impression of what the Lightning Network was developed for and that bigger transactions would still be done on-chain. In your view, would you say 1 bitcoin is a micro transaction?

Bitcoin on chain transactions will probably never scale above opening and closing lightning channels and swift style inter bank clearing. You know, in the longer term. That which doesn't fit on the first layer will be pushed off to the second. Simple as that.

I think I'll go away until it's brainless. Are there plans to make it brainless?

With Bitcoin Lightning Wallet on android it's pretty brainless. Probably too brainy for the truly brainless, random middle aged ladies and what not, but probably close enough to the sort of brainless you are interested in.

Right now micro payment to me appears to be asking for payment for something that was previously free that I don't value anyway that I'd rather go without than pay for such as articles or vids. I suppose there is that much fabled coffee.

This thought process falls victim to the problem of the seen and the unseen. You are failing to see the services that do not exist (an easy thing to fall victim to) but would exist if micro payments did exist. It is difficult to say whether or not you would be willing to pay for those or not, seeing as they don't exist, but you very well might.

I would've thought machine to machine stuff is where lightning networks will end up shining.

Definitely. Imagine being able to bid for the transportation of discrete chunks of data. You just say "hey neighboring physical infrastructure nodes, I wan't this chunk of data to be transported to this address, who can do it the cheapest? who can do it the most quickly?" And your neighboring physical infrastructure nodes perform the same calculation, and the ones next to them the same calculation, et al. Then the price for each route comes cascading backwards all the way to each of the nodes that are physically adjacent to you and to you, you then pick your preferred trade off between price, bandwidth and latency. No need for data plans, almost impossible to censor, so much more private, and a network that could organically adapt to a living pulse of price signals. Heck even the north Korean government couldn't censor an internet like that. And that's surely just scratching the surface.

[aliashraf]

If we say that the Lightning Network is a 2cnd layer application, targeted at micro transactions, would we clearly define what constitutes a micro transaction first? I recently saw individual channels that are funded by +/- 37 bitcoins.  

This was my first impression of what the Lightning Network was developed for and that bigger transactions would still be done on-chain. In your view, would you say 1 bitcoin is a micro transaction?

Bitcoin on chain transactions will probably never scale above opening and closing lightning channels and swift style inter bank clearing. You know, in the longer term. That which doesn't fit on the first layer will be pushed off to the second. Simple as that.

Once a problem looks to be a challenge on first layer, one should firstly think of improving the infrastructure. Bitcoin is not a rigid, dead system. This infrastructure has more potentials to be unleashed and yet we have sharding solutions in the horizon as well. Sharding is a first layer protocol, an on-chain scalability solution.

Sharding is more elegant and beautiful compared to ugly complicated second layer solutions like LN, which completely abstracts users from the consensus algorithm, the way google, facebook, .... ruined the Internet and turned it to such a dangerous place for ordinary people by compromising their privacy and security. I suppose you guys have a same agenda for destroying bitcoin by putting people behind layers of abstraction.

It is an insane strategy. Bitcoin needs fresh breath to breath interaction with users and simplicity. Only a corporate employee would take second layer development serious, a hacker, just don't GAS.  

I would've thought machine to machine stuff is where lightning networks will end up shining.

Definitely. Imagine being able to bid for the transportation of discrete chunks of data. You just say "hey neighboring physical infrastructure nodes, I wan't this chunk of data to be transported to this address, who can do it the cheapest? who can do it the most quickly?" And your neighboring physical infrastructure nodes perform the same calculation, and the ones next to them the same calculation, et al. Then the price for each route comes cascading backwards all the way to each of the nodes that are physically adjacent to you and to you, you then pick your preferred trade off between price, bandwidth and latency. No need for data plans, almost impossible to censor, so much more private, and a network that could organically adapt to a living pulse of price signals. Heck even the north Korean government couldn't censor an internet like that. And that's surely just scratching the surface.

Good dreams, non of them feasible yet, who is in charge of routing this messages?
Anyway, what the hell is it?  A 4th layer IP on bitcoin on tcp/ip on ip protocol?  

[vapourminer]

a request from Shelby. to be considered a last contribution, and perhaps further some more useful discussion on the matter (without his now banned input of course).

If someone is willing to link or quote this in the LN discussion thread, I suppose that would stimulate the discussion points over there. I guess my last contribution.

I had clearly explained that Lightning Networks will work fine with Satoshi’s protocol once it centralizes as it must because it is a natural monopoly:

For example the current LN thread discussion is incorrect or incomplete ever since @anunymint was nuked from the thread. They do not understand the concept of a natural monopoly and that the liquidity scale is the barrier-to-entry in LN because users always need to be where the liquidity is as exemplified by exchanges, especially in payment systems because merchants and users don’t want to be stuck and not be able to checkout the shopping cart.

Scale = better service (routing, etc) and higher liquidity

Decentralized exchanges have failed because everyone needs to be where the liquidity is. Much more so for payment systems. When someone can’t route their payment because of insufficient liquidity, both the merchant and the customer lose.

The LN Mt.Gox hubs can then leverage this need into entrenched oligarchies, which can dictate terms to users and merchants. Visa and Mastercard here we come again.

Nothing changes. We are right back where we started from.

[Anon136]

Once a problem looks to be a challenge on first layer, one should firstly think of improving the infrastructure. Bitcoin is not a rigid, dead system. This infrastructure has more potentials to be unleashed and yet we have sharding solutions in the horizon as well. Sharding is a first layer protocol, an on-chain scalability solution.

Sharding is more elegant and beautiful compared to ugly complicated second layer solutions like LN, which completely abstracts users from the consensus algorithm, the way google, facebook, .... ruined the Internet and turned it to such a dangerous place for ordinary people by compromising their privacy and security. I suppose you guys have a same agenda for destroying bitcoin by putting people behind layers of abstraction.

It is an insane strategy. Bitcoin needs fresh breath to breath interaction with users and simplicity. Only a corporate employee would take second layer development serious, a hacker, just don't GAS.  

Do we have an example of sharding that actually works and scales atleast nearly as well as LN? Has it been tested not just theorized? If that project exists than I am interested in it.

Good dreams, non of them feasible yet, who is in charge of routing this messages?
Anyway, what the hell is it?  A 4th layer IP on bitcoin on tcp/ip on ip protocol?  

A socialist? Here on bitcoin talk? I never thought I would see that. No, but seriously, without a central planer how will farmers know which processing plants to route their soybeans to? How will grocery stores know which customers to route which products to? Having an entity "in charge" of routing is precisely the problem that I was hoping a truly scalable cryptocurrency could solve.

I could make some guesses about how it might be done but that is beyond the scope of this thread so we probably shouldn't go too far down this particular rabbit hole here. I'll say, it could work something like the address it's self encodes some data about its rough location on planet earth, then nodes early in the chain could just begin by roughing it "thattaway" and later nodes in the chain would have more detailed maps of their local network topography. That's just one possible idea out of nearly infinity. The inability to think of something here is not proof that it wouldn't work, its proof of a failure of imagination.

What matters for this discussion is not the solution, but whether or not it is soluble. What matters is, when cash is up for grabs, will individual entrepreneurs be able to figure out how to forward data in such a way as to get it generally closer to it's destination than it was before? That's actually not a tall order. Most of the time you will need to get to your nearest city first, then the nearest regional hub, then from there to the regional hub nearest your destination and same process out to your destination. It really isn't rocket science.

*edit* haha we don't even use source routing right now! there isn't even an centralized entity "in charge of routing" right now!

[Rath_]

Decentralized exchanges have failed because everyone needs to be where the liquidity is. Much more so for payment systems. When someone can’t route their payment because of insufficient liquidity, both the merchant and the customer lose.

Decentralized exchanges are still in a raw state. They are not newbie friendly, just like the Lightning Network. I wouldn't call them a failure because there is still a lot of work which needs to be done. We still lack user-friendly Lightning Network wallets which could provide channel backup and easy full-node setup process. There is a risk that the whole network becomes more centralized in the future because of people opening their channels to the biggest nodes or depending on a third party. Despite all this facts, the number of nodes and users is constantly growing and you must be asking yourself, why is that?

Lightning Network is still in its early state, why not compare it to the early days of Bitcoin when it was fairly easy to take over the network with a 51% attack? Give it some more time. Nobody expects to see every Bitcoin user using the Lightning Network this year.

[bitcoineverything]

Just want to share a video here from two of the prime founders of Lightning network Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja. The video was made in the year 2015.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zVzw912wPo

The video made me understand what lightning network is. 

[Anon136]

Lightning Network Mainnet Faucet - Community Jar

Although is this really useful when you can't open a channel without putting in some funds to begin with? Does anyone know of a node that will open a channel with you for no cost?

[Kakmakr]

If we say that the Lightning Network is a 2cnd layer application, targeted at micro transactions, would we clearly define what constitutes a micro transaction first? I recently saw individual channels that are funded by +/- 37 bitcoins.  

This was my first impression of what the Lightning Network was developed for and that bigger transactions would still be done on-chain. In your view, would you say 1 bitcoin is a micro transaction?

Bitcoin on chain transactions will probably never scale above opening and closing lightning channels and swift style inter bank clearing. You know, in the longer term. That which doesn't fit on the first layer will be pushed off to the second. Simple as that.

Once a problem looks to be a challenge on first layer, one should firstly think of improving the infrastructure. Bitcoin is not a rigid, dead system. This infrastructure has more potentials to be unleashed and yet we have sharding solutions in the horizon as well. Sharding is a first layer protocol, an on-chain scalability solution.

Sharding is more elegant and beautiful compared to ugly complicated second layer solutions like LN, which completely abstracts users from the consensus algorithm, the way google, facebook, .... ruined the Internet and turned it to such a dangerous place for ordinary people by compromising their privacy and security. I suppose you guys have a same agenda for destroying bitcoin by putting people behind layers of abstraction.

It is an insane strategy. Bitcoin needs fresh breath to breath interaction with users and simplicity. Only a corporate employee would take second layer development serious, a hacker, just don't GAS.  

I would've thought machine to machine stuff is where lightning networks will end up shining.

Definitely. Imagine being able to bid for the transportation of discrete chunks of data. You just say "hey neighboring physical infrastructure nodes, I wan't this chunk of data to be transported to this address, who can do it the cheapest? who can do it the most quickly?" And your neighboring physical infrastructure nodes perform the same calculation, and the ones next to them the same calculation, et al. Then the price for each route comes cascading backwards all the way to each of the nodes that are physically adjacent to you and to you, you then pick your preferred trade off between price, bandwidth and latency. No need for data plans, almost impossible to censor, so much more private, and a network that could organically adapt to a living pulse of price signals. Heck even the north Korean government couldn't censor an internet like that. And that's surely just scratching the surface.

Good dreams, non of them feasible yet, who is in charge of routing this messages?
Anyway, what the hell is it?  A 4th layer IP on bitcoin on tcp/ip on ip protocol?  

WTF, We are not trying to destroy Bitcoin, we are just discussing the Pro's and Con's of the technology and how to utilize it in the best manner to get the most out of it. I am saying, that the Lightning Network developers should consider defining, what a micro payment should be to utilize the system to it's full potential.

The parameters that are used now, is just temporary?

[aliashraf]

a request from Shelby. to be considered a last contribution, and perhaps further some more useful discussion on the matter (without his now banned input of course).

If someone is willing to link or quote this in the LN discussion thread, I suppose that would stimulate the discussion points over there. I guess my last contribution.

I had clearly explained that Lightning Networks will work fine with Satoshi’s protocol once it centralizes as it must because it is a natural monopoly:

For example the current LN thread discussion is incorrect or incomplete ever since @anunymint was nuked from the thread. They do not understand the concept of a natural monopoly and that the liquidity scale is the barrier-to-entry in LN because users always need to be where the liquidity is as exemplified by exchanges, especially in payment systems because merchants and users don’t want to be stuck and not be able to checkout the shopping cart.

Scale = better service (routing, etc) and higher liquidity

Decentralized exchanges have failed because everyone needs to be where the liquidity is. Much more so for payment systems. When someone can’t route their payment because of insufficient liquidity, both the merchant and the customer lose.

The LN Mt.Gox hubs can then leverage this need into entrenched oligarchies, which can dictate terms to users and merchants. Visa and Mastercard here we come again.

Nothing changes. We are right back where we started from.

Right to the point. This is why I objected to banning Shelby. The guy got a vision, I hate it but it is real and it works for me to understand on which side I am or I'm not.

[aliashraf]

WTF, We are not trying to destroy Bitcoin, we are just discussing the Pro's and Con's of the technology and how to utilize it in the best manner to get the most out of it. I am saying, that the Lightning Network developers should consider defining, what a micro payment should be to utilize the system to it's full potential.

The parameters that are used now, is just temporary?

Yeah, you're already done with destroying bitcoin, I get it. 

Bitcoin is not an infrastructure, it is the system, remember? Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin, turning it to something it was not meant to be.

For years, teaching noobs about bitcoin, I've been  used to begin with telling them the Internet story and how its decentralized nature is hided from them by centralized services on top of it. Now what do I have tell to them? Like "Hey, Bitcoin is decentralized, don't worry, it is the fault of second layer protocols that you are being spied and censored"?

[Anon136]

Bitcoin is not an infrastructure, it is the system, remember? Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin, turning it to something it was not meant to be.

For years, teaching noobs about bitcoin, I've been  used to begin with telling them the Internet story and how its decentralized nature is hided from them by centralized services on top of it. Now what do I have tell to them? Like

This is such garbage. A second layer solution doesn't "turn bitcoin into something that it wasn't meant to be" because it doesn't do anything to the original Bitcoin. The original bitcoin will still be there, unmolested, following the initial vision. Unless you consider segwit to be too much of a departure. In which case segwit isn't lightning network or a second layer solution so you will have to take that up elsewhere.

Bitcoin is open and permissionless. People can stack what ever the hell they want on top of it. Who are you to tell people how they an and can't use the blockchain when their transactions are following all of the rules of the protocol?

"Hey, Bitcoin is decentralized, don't worry, it is the fault of second layer protocols that you are being spied and censored"?

No one can censor anyone over LN. If a particular group of node operators are censoring you than you can route your transaction through any one else on the entire planet who is willing to do it for you instead. Garbage nonsense FUD.

[aliashraf]

Once a problem looks to be a challenge on first layer, one should firstly think of improving the infrastructure. Bitcoin is not a rigid, dead system. This infrastructure has more potentials to be unleashed and yet we have sharding solutions in the horizon as well. Sharding is a first layer protocol, an on-chain scalability solution.

Sharding is more elegant and beautiful compared to ugly complicated second layer solutions like LN, which completely abstracts users from the consensus algorithm, the way google, facebook, .... ruined the Internet and turned it to such a dangerous place for ordinary people by compromising their privacy and security. I suppose you guys have a same agenda for destroying bitcoin by putting people behind layers of abstraction.

It is an insane strategy. Bitcoin needs fresh breath to breath interaction with users and simplicity. Only a corporate employee would take second layer development serious, a hacker, just don't GAS.  

Do we have an example of sharding that actually works and scales at least nearly as well as LN? Has it been tested not just theorized? If that project exists than I am interested in it.

We don't need sharding yet, the scalability and micro payment problems are not actually around yet, they are not urgent.  To get sharding to work, we need 'getting rid of pools' by improving the protocol, sharding doesn't work fine with pools. First things first!

Good dreams, non of them feasible yet, who is in charge of routing this messages?
Anyway, what the hell is it?  A 4th layer IP on bitcoin on tcp/ip on ip protocol?  

A socialist? Here on bitcoin talk? I never thought I would see that. ...

WTF? are you kidding? We are all socialists here, we have always been and we will be socialists!

Btctalk is funded by Satoshi Nakamoto, remember?

It is about Bitcoin! Sounds familiar? Yes! Yes! The internet money that is supposed to retire banks of any kind all over the globe and it is decentralized and trustless and public and open!

Wait! Have you ever heard of Bitcoin's axiom of resistance ?
Nop?!
No kidding, 1000+ posts and you don't have a clue about where you are ... fucking amazing.

... No, but seriously, without a central planer how will farmers know which processing plants to route their soybeans to? How will grocery stores know which customers to route which products to? Having an entity "in charge" of routing is precisely the problem that I was hoping a truly scalable cryptocurrency could solve.

Ok then. Centers are seriously needed, because you can't imagine how a p2p system work, ok, I understand, you should join to an internship or something, I understand, you need help.

I could make some guesses about how it might be done but that is beyond the scope of this thread so we probably shouldn't go too far down this particular rabbit hole here. I'll say, it could work something like the address it's self encodes some data about its rough location on planet earth, then nodes early in the chain could just begin by roughing it "thattaway" and later nodes in the chain would have more detailed maps of their local network topography. That's just one possible idea out of nearly infinity. The inability to think of something here is not proof that it wouldn't work, its proof of a failure of imagination.

Noway! Addresses aren't zip codes, thanks god!

What matters for this discussion is not the solution, but whether or not it is soluble. What matters is, when cash is up for grabs, will individual entrepreneurs be able to figure out how to forward data in such a way as to get it generally closer to it's destination than it was before? That's actually not a tall order. Most of the time you will need to get to your nearest city first, then the nearest regional hub, then from there to the regional hub nearest your destination and same process out to your destination. It really isn't rocket science.

No, it is not soluble without ruining decentralization agenda of cryptocurrency. We have banks, traditional banking, which is an ultimate centralized solution, you can't optimize it a bit in a centralized framework.

[Wind_FURY]

WTF, We are not trying to destroy Bitcoin, we are just discussing the Pro's and Con's of the technology and how to utilize it in the best manner to get the most out of it. I am saying, that the Lightning Network developers should consider defining, what a micro payment should be to utilize the system to it's full potential.

The parameters that are used now, is just temporary?

Yeah, you're already done with destroying bitcoin, I get it.  

Bitcoin is not an infrastructure, it is the system, remember? Projecting problems to the second layer, stacking up protocols on protocols leads to nowhere other than ruining bitcoin,

Ruining it how? Bitcoin is an open system that is open for developers to build tools on top of it. The Lightning Network is one such tool.

turning it to something it was not meant to be.

Is that your argument? Hahaha.

You need to make a transaction onchain to open a Lightning channel, technically it is still functioning as it was meant to be.

For years, teaching noobs about bitcoin, I've been  used to begin with telling them the Internet story and how its decentralized nature is hided from them by centralized services on top of it. Now what do I have tell to them? Like "Hey, Bitcoin is decentralized, don't worry, it is the fault of second layer protocols that you are being spied and censored"?

Post your credentials, and who are you if you stand by that claim of authority.