Lightning Network Discussion Thread

[Wind_FURY]

Newbie question. Would it then be correct to make an assumption that there's really more than $1,800,000 in total channel capacity in the network?

IMO no, since these nodes looks like on different network and we don't know how LN statistic website gather the information? Do they simply only count Bitcoin from nodes/channel which connected to other nodes which share their nodes public-ally or use check for 2-of-2 multi-sig HLTC transaction on bitcoin network

I believe they should use the 2-of-2 multi-sig HLTC transactions. Technically they are the channels opened to use the Lightning Network?

Remember the "Roger Ver" Lightning node that was there, but no other node would connect to it? Hahaha.

[1713301002]

1713301002

[1713301002]

1713301002

[Wind_FURY]

It's apparently only a joke made by someone a few months ago, but it is funny that no one would connect to it just because it's called "Roger Ver". Hahaha.

[Wind_FURY]

The quote is from someone who claims that Lightning is a "separate network" because of something in its code called "chainhash".

What is chainhash, and how can the Lightning Network be considered a "separate network" because of it?

research it. hint: chainhash
here ill even show you a few lines of code that LN is not a bitcoin feature but a separate network for different coins
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/chainregistry.go#L580

Code:

litecoinMainnetGenesis = chainhash.Hash([chainhash.HashSize]byte{
0xe2, 0xbf, 0x04, 0x7e, 0x7e, 0x5a, 0x19, 0x1a,
0xa4, 0xef, 0x34, 0xd3, 0x14, 0x97, 0x9d, 0xc9,
0x98, 0x6e, 0x0f, 0x19, 0x25, 0x1e, 0xda, 0xba,
0x59, 0x40, 0xfd, 0x1f, 0xe3, 0x65, 0xa7, 0x12,
})

// chainMap is a simple index that maps a chain's genesis hash to the
// chainCode enum for that chain.
chainMap = map[chainhash.Hash]chainCode{

bitcoinTestnetGenesis:  bitcoinChain,
                litecoinTestnetGenesis: litecoinChain,

bitcoinMainnetGenesis:  bitcoinChain,
litecoinMainnetGenesis: litecoinChain,
}

[achow101]

The quote is from someone who claims that Lightning is a "separate network" because of something in its code called "chainhash".

What is chainhash, and how can the Lightning Network be considered a "separate network" because of it?

The Lightning Network works on any cryptocurrency that has some specific properties. For example, it can be used on both Bitcoin and Litecoin. The chainhash is the hash of the genesis block and is used to indicate which blockchain a particular lightning node is operating on. In a way, the Lightning Network on Bitcoin and Lightning Network on Litecoin are two different networks. However, they are also the same network too.

They are different networks in the sense that there cannot be channels which are shared across both blockchains. All channels are based on one blockchain as channels require modification of a transaction for that blockchain. Since Bitcoin and Litecoin use different blockchains, there can only be Bitcoin channels and Litecoin channels.

However, they can also be viewed as the same network because of cross chain atomic swaps. HTLCs allow people to create a channel on Bitcoin and a similar channel on Litecoin which uses HTLCs with the same hashed secrets. This let people atomically swap Bitcoin for Litecoin. So payments can still be routed over this joint network. If someone wanted to be paid in Litecoin over the Lightning Network but you only have Bitcoin channels, you can (in theory, I don't know if this is implemented) route your payment through a node that has both Bitcoin and Litecoin channels using the same HTLC secrets and it would be totally fine. The only caveat is the exchange rate between Bitcoin and Litecoin which would have to be negotiated with that node doing the bridging between Bitcoin and Litecoin.

[Wind_FURY]

Thanks for the thorough explanation about chainhash, I shall refer to it whenever the topic comes up. But the poster looks like he's on a gaslighting rampage to make everyone believe that the Lightning Network is literally a different network, like Ripple. Hahaha.

He has been using chainhash as the basis of his "debate".

[DooMAD]

Thanks for the thorough explanation about chainhash, I shall refer to it whenever the topic comes up. But the poster looks like he's on a gaslighting rampage to make everyone believe that the Lightning Network is literally a different network, like Ripple. Hahaha.

He has been using chainhash as the basis of his "debate".

You’re not the only one to have noticed.  It's getting absurd now.  I don't often frequent the Reputation board, but I'm tempted to make an exception for this particular user.

Lightning may support more than one coin, but that doesn't diminish Bitcoin’s utility.  If anything, it's far more reasonable to argue that LN is an enhancement to Bitcoin’s utility.  It's just another way to move coins around.  The option is there if you need it.  And if you don't need it, you can still transact in the same way you always have done.

Units of BTC can never "leave" Bitcoin’s blockchain via Lightning.  The owner of the coins can change, but it's all still BTC on Bitcoin's blockchain.  Other compatible coins can send transactions in the same way on their respective chains, but this has no detrimental impact on Bitcoin.

Once LN is more user-friendly, rather than taking whatever arguments are presented here on the forums as gospel, people should just try it for themselves and form their own conclusions.  Obviously some forum users aren't content with that and will continue to attempt to dissuade people going anywhere near LN, in order to push their on-chain call-it-scaling-even-though-it-isnt agenda.  If people can see LN having a positive effect, it decimates the non-arguments of this small minority of malicious forum accounts.

[mechanikalk]

Is lightning network making bitcoin centralised?

Yes.

It is also reintroducing middleman which will perpetually charge transactions fees due to network driven oligopolies.  It is a lot like Visa and Master card.

[DooMAD]

Is lightning network making bitcoin centralised?

Have a look at one of the mainnet Lightning network maps and decide for yourself.  I'll see if I can provide a link, but I'm posting from a phone at the moment.

//EDIT:  https://explorer.acinq.co  should show you the current number of nodes.  Many altcoins have fewer nodes than LN, so they are arguably more centralised than Lightning.  LN does have a different security model, however, so make sure you understand it thoroughly before you dive in to use it.

[coingecko]

The problem I've seen so far with Lightning is that the nodes and wallets need to be online in order to send and receive funds.

Less intuitively than a bitcoin transaction where I can access it at a later time as long as its sent to the address.

Hopefully there are some thoughts to this. Tools to ensure uptime of the node is a good starting point.

[Carlton Banks]

Many altcoins have fewer nodes than LN

this

The problem I've seen so far with Lightning is that the nodes and wallets need to be online in order to send and receive funds.

Less intuitively than a bitcoin transaction where I can access it at a later time as long as its sent to the address.

Hopefully there are some thoughts to this. Tools to ensure uptime of the node is a good starting point.

This is the most legitimate criticism of LN. There's a solution though: run your own lightning node.

It's worth remembering that internet culture evolves rapidly, as it's really still an immature system (despite the huge improvements since the 80's/90's). People are always looking for "more", going to the next level of living. I expect that running a small server will eventually become one of those "next big thing"s, personal servers are useful for way more than just running a lightning node.

[Wind_FURY]

Is lightning network making bitcoin centralised?

Yes.

No.

It is also reintroducing middleman which will perpetually charge transactions fees due to network driven oligopolies.  It is a lot like Visa and Master card.

Where are the middlemen? You mean the routing of payments from one point to another if the sender does not have a direct channel to the receiver? Those are peers, not "middlemen". Haha.

[franky1]

Those are peers, not "middlemen". Haha.

define middlemen
define someone with co-control of funds
they are not just a peer

EG banks
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control

EG LN lock
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control


so now your saying a bank is your peer, they can disagree with your intention to make a payment
they can choose their opening times. they can choose the limits of how much funds can be passed

yes you can close your account and open an account with another peer(bank)

i really do laugh when people try to deny another party is involved by saying 'but they are not a third party'
having anyone else involved and has partial or even main control means your not in 100% control

and if that other party has more control access of multiple users (hub/factory) then ask yourself
       y
       ^
       v
x<>o<>z

if you are X
what is o
2nd or 3rd party
peer or middleman

oh and if you think that users will be permanently online with a merchant:
all day for the purpose of one coffee a day
all day everyday for the purpose of buying groceries once a week
all day every day every week for the purpose of making one mortgage/rent payment a month

just to be tagged as 'second party' to avoid the meaningless tag of '3rd party'
you would be sadly mistaken

but trying to twist 3rd, into 2nd, into peer is more funny

why are you so afraid to admit LN is a separate network even though devs are happy to admit it
why are you so afraid to admit LN is a separate network even though literally N of LN spells it out
why are you so afraid admit to funds get locked into a contract
why are you so afraid admit to funds get locked into a contract of co-party control

why deny co-party control
why not just call it what it is and actually if you want to promote it to death. promote it for its reality. not its uptopia

[squatter]

define middlemen
define someone with co-control of funds
they are not just a peer

EG banks
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control

EG LN lock
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control

so now your saying a bank is your peer, they can disagree with your intention to make a payment
they can choose their opening times. they can choose the limits of how much funds can be passed

Your arguments never have any substance. You just baselessly refer to LN nodes as "banks" and expect people to believe you.

Counterparties in LN can only co-sign changes to channel state. They don't have control of the underlying funds. Any attempt to steal underlying funds can easily be thwarted by broadcasting the last state to the blockchain.

Peers in LN don't have the power to stop you from making payments. At most, they can cause a delay by not signing counterparty transactions or refusing to route them. There are no incentives for them to censor transactions, but there are incentives for them to route them.

Worst comes to worst, you settle to the blockchain. There's no comparison to banks.

[Wind_FURY]

Those are peers, not "middlemen". Haha.

define middlemen
define someone with co-control of funds
they are not just a peer

EG banks
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control

EG LN lock
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control

How can you compare a bank and a trust-minimized network like Lightning?

so now your saying a bank is your peer, they can disagree with your intention to make a payment
they can choose their opening times. they can choose the limits of how much funds can be passed

No you said that because you assumed centralized banks = trust-minimized Lightning peers.

why are you so afraid to admit LN is a separate network even though devs are happy to admit it

Which developers?

Gaslighting again.

why are you so afraid to admit LN is a separate network even though literally N of LN spells it out

If the developers call it just "Lightning", it will stop to be a separate network?

why are you so afraid admit to funds get locked into a contract
why are you so afraid admit to funds get locked into a contract of co-party control

But in a trust-minimized way. Co-parties don't control the coins.

[Rath_]

Eclair (Android) has been renamed to Eclair Mobile and received an update. User is now able to select to which Electrum server he wants to connect to. Receiving LN payments will be enabled somewhere in 2019 after LN 1.1 goes live (dual-funding and liquidity advertisement is needed). More information can be found in this article.

[franky1]

"trust minimalized"

lol im laughing

i think more people really need to actually research LN. its getting obvious who has actually used it and who is just repeating the propaganda promotion material

[DooMAD]

"trust minimalized"

lol im laughing

i think more people really need to actually research LN. its getting obvious who has actually used it and who is just repeating the propaganda promotion material

I've yet to hear complaints from those who have used it that the experience was like dealing with banks. 
I've yet to hear complaints from those who have used it that it is a utopian fantasy.
I've yet to hear complaints from those who have used it that their consensus was bypassed.
I've yet to hear complaints from those who have used it that it is a separate network that supports more than once blockchain.

All that repeated propaganda material is coming from you.

But as long as we agree on the part where people should try using Lightning before forming their own conclusions, rather than simply take your word or mine for it, then that's okay.  However, much like Bitcoin itself, it's only responsible to point out that Lightning is still not at the stage where it is ready for mainstream adoption.  It may be best for most users to wait a while before taking the plunge.  It's also important for users to learn about the differences between sending transactions via LN compared to the standard way of transacting before getting involved.  The security model is different.  Lightning is still beta software.  Users should experiment with only small amounts of BTC, or other compatible cryptocurrency, until LN is more mature.

[bones261]

 Lightning is still beta software.  Users should experiment with only small amounts of BTC, or other compatible cryptocurrency, until LN is more mature.

   If people want to experiment with the LN, they should use the test network rather than the main network. What is considered a "small amount" now could very well be considered a significant amount in a few years. I for one am going to continue to wait to use it. I attempted to set it up several month ago, but found the whole process to be a PITA. Thank goodness that at this stage in the game, the setup process isn't exactly idiot friendly.  

[Majormax]

The quote is from someone who claims that Lightning is a "separate network" because of something in its code called "chainhash".

What is chainhash, and how can the Lightning Network be considered a "separate network" because of it?

The Lightning Network works on any cryptocurrency that has some specific properties. For example, it can be used on both Bitcoin and Litecoin. The chainhash is the hash of the genesis block and is used to indicate which blockchain a particular lightning node is operating on. In a way, the Lightning Network on Bitcoin and Lightning Network on Litecoin are two different networks. However, they are also the same network too.

They are different networks in the sense that there cannot be channels which are shared across both blockchains. All channels are based on one blockchain as channels require modification of a transaction for that blockchain. Since Bitcoin and Litecoin use different blockchains, there can only be Bitcoin channels and Litecoin channels.

However, they can also be viewed as the same network because of cross chain atomic swaps. HTLCs allow people to create a channel on Bitcoin and a similar channel on Litecoin which uses HTLCs with the same hashed secrets. This let people atomically swap Bitcoin for Litecoin. So payments can still be routed over this joint network. If someone wanted to be paid in Litecoin over the Lightning Network but you only have Bitcoin channels, you can (in theory, I don't know if this is implemented) route your payment through a node that has both Bitcoin and Litecoin channels using the same HTLC secrets and it would be totally fine. The only caveat is the exchange rate between Bitcoin and Litecoin which would have to be negotiated with that node doing the bridging between Bitcoin and Litecoin.

Good explanation.

It seems that alternative cryptos are helping LN become more secure by widening the breadth of different users and hashrate. Is that a fair assumption ?

[Wind_FURY]

"trust minimalized"

lol im laughing

i think more people really need to actually research LN. its getting obvious who has actually used it and who is just repeating the propaganda promotion material

It is trust-minimized.

No, it's you who has not researched Lightning, or reject the reality that Lightning is truly decentralized, and truly is "peer to peer electronic cash", like how Satoshi envisioned it.

You can laugh all you want, but no one believes you anymore, because all your narratives have been memefied.