Bitcoin Forum
September 19, 2018, 12:18:43 AM *
News: ♦♦ Bitcoin Core users must update to 0.16.3 [Torrent]. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Block Size Scalability Issues  (Read 378 times)
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1093


Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees


View Profile
August 30, 2018, 12:16:23 PM
 #21

We need massive amounts of settlement tx's on-chain, when people open & close channels on the Lightning Network and the price of a bitcoin must grow exponentially for miners to be profitable.  Undecided

With a big user base who is transacting daily on the LN, there will be enough on-chain transactions.
And if not, the fees for the on-chain transactions will be low enough for users to be attracted by on-chain tx's again.
I believe this will find an equilibrium.

Besides, these reason also makes miners still could get decent amount of TX fees :
1. Few people who don't want to use LN (due to various reason)
2. Services that too lazy to implement LN
3. People who prefer on-chain transaction for big/important transaction
4. LN (or most channel payment) still require at least 2 on-chain transaction (open/close channel), unless with other implementation such as Channel Factories

...
Unfortunately it's impossible with current PoW algorithm/consensus method since people who have most efficient ASIC with cheapest electricity always win and in PoW, the winner takes all.
...

This may be true in theory, but in practice most miners are part of a mining
pool. Therefore they participate in the block reward every time that someone
from their pool "gets lucky" and manages to claim the block reward.

In the long-run this smoothes out the mining income and enables mining
on a more industrial scale. Of course there is still the possibility of mining
less than your expected share for a long time, but still taking part in a mining
pool reduces the variance inherent to a system that was designed as a
winner takes all system.

I wonder how Bitcoin would have turned out if we had never seen the emergence
of mining pools. The hashrate would probably be lower, because higher variance
would have made long-term planning and therefore industrial mining much more
difficult.

That means mining pool only reduce PoW's inherent system and majority still don't get anything (including big miners on other pool). Besides, it's trade-off if the miners care about anonymity/decentralization (even though almost one cares).

If mining pool is never exist, only people with big funds is able to mine Bitcoin while maintain profit, unless lots of people with low funds rely on luck.

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
          ▄▄▄▄       
     ▄▄█▀▀▀▄▄▀▀▀█▄▄   
   ▄█▀▄▄████████▄▄▀█▄
 ▄█▀▄██████████████▄▀█▄
▐█ ██████████████████ █▌
█▌▐██████████████████▌▐█
█▌▐██████████████████▌▐█
▐█ ██████████████████ █▌
 ▀█▄▀██████████████▀▄█▀
   ▀█▄▀▀████████▀▀▄█▀   
     ▀▀█▄▄▄▀▀▄▄▄█▀▀     
          ▀▀▀▀         
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
███▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
▐██                 ██▌
 ███▄             ▄███
  ▀███▄         ▄███▀ 
    ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄███▀▀   
        ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       
 
██ ████  ██████  ██████ ███ ████ ██████████████████████

..WHITEPAPER..





             ▄████▄▄   ▄
█▄          ██████████▀▄
███        ███████████▀
▐████▄     ██████████▌
▄▄██████▄▄▄▄█████████▌
▀████████████████████
  ▀█████████████████
  ▄▄███████████████
   ▀█████████████▀
    ▄▄█████████▀
▀▀██████████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀





▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████▀       ████
██████████████      ▄▄▄████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████            ▐████
██████████            █████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
▀█████████████    ▐███████▀





                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1537316323
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537316323

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537316323
Reply with quote  #2

1537316323
Report to moderator
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1143


View Profile
August 30, 2018, 02:12:54 PM
 #22

We need massive amounts of settlement tx's on-chain, when people open & close channels on the Lightning Network and the price of a bitcoin must grow exponentially for miners to be profitable.  Undecided


With a big user base who is transacting daily on the LN, there will be enough on-chain transactions.
And if not, the fees for the on-chain transactions will be low enough for users to be attracted by on-chain tx's again.
I believe this will find an equilibrium.

The price does only have to grow exponentially if the miner do want to keep increasing the hashrate.
If mining gets unprofitable, the miner with the highest costs and lowest capital will stop mining and vice versa. This should also find an equilibrium.
 

I don't know why but people often forget that on-chain transactions will continue happening every 10 minutes, without LN.

These that can afford on-chain transactions and see a point in doing them (most likely for bigger transactions that require it to be on-chain) will always find a good opportunity cost to use it and thus keep paying miners.

As usage goes up fees goes up, miners happy, hashrate goes up, users happy due safer blockchain. It's a nice snowball effect.

We all would like to be able to transact instant, cheaply on-chain without no sequences but apparently physics don't work that way, for now either pay the fee or use LN.

Kakmakr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1124

★ ChipMixer | Bitcoin mixing service ★


View Profile
August 31, 2018, 06:17:16 AM
 #23

We need massive amounts of settlement tx's on-chain, when people open & close channels on the Lightning Network and the price of a bitcoin must grow exponentially for miners to be profitable.  Undecided


With a big user base who is transacting daily on the LN, there will be enough on-chain transactions.
And if not, the fees for the on-chain transactions will be low enough for users to be attracted by on-chain tx's again.
I believe this will find an equilibrium.

The price does only have to grow exponentially if the miner do want to keep increasing the hashrate.
If mining gets unprofitable, the miner with the highest costs and lowest capital will stop mining and vice versa. This should also find an equilibrium.
 

I don't know why but people often forget that on-chain transactions will continue happening every 10 minutes, without LN.

These that can afford on-chain transactions and see a point in doing them (most likely for bigger transactions that require it to be on-chain) will always find a good opportunity cost to use it and thus keep paying miners.

As usage goes up fees goes up, miners happy, hashrate goes up, users happy due safer blockchain. It's a nice snowball effect.

We all would like to be able to transact instant, cheaply on-chain without no sequences but apparently physics don't work that way, for now either pay the fee or use LN.

Also, miners might start to supplement their income by hosting LN Nodes and getting fees from forwarding people's tx's. If they stop mining, then the Lightning Network will stop functioning and they will not get any fees from both the LN and the miners fees from their Bitcoin mining.

So in my opinion the Lightning Network actually supplement their income or it might just balance it out, when the Block reward decline. Huh

BitCryptex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 278



View Profile WWW
August 31, 2018, 09:18:22 AM
 #24

Also, miners might start to supplement their income by hosting LN Nodes and getting fees from forwarding people's tx's. If they stop mining, then the Lightning Network will stop functioning and they will not get any fees from both the LN and the miners fees from their Bitcoin mining.

So in my opinion the Lightning Network actually supplement their income or it might just balance it out, when the Block reward decline. Huh

I don't think if setting up Lightning Nodes will be profitable for them. Lightning Network earnings are quite small and might not be worth the hassle of balancing thousands of channels. If some miners decided to stop mining due to low profitability then the difficulty would drop resulting in higher profit for those who continued to mine. None second-layer solution will replace on-chain transactions. Miners will continue to earn from on-chain fees. What is more profitable for an average miner? Small blocks and spikes in transaction fees or big blocks and small fees?



APPLY FOR INVESTMENT
GET WHITELISTED

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
          ▄▄▄▄       
     ▄▄█▀▀▀▄▄▀▀▀█▄▄   
   ▄█▀▄▄████████▄▄▀█▄
 ▄█▀▄██████████████▄▀█▄
▐█ ██████████████████ █▌
█▌▐██████████████████▌▐█
█▌▐██████████████████▌▐█
▐█ ██████████████████ █▌
 ▀█▄▀██████████████▀▄█▀
   ▀█▄▀▀████████▀▀▄█▀   
     ▀▀█▄▄▄▀▀▄▄▄█▀▀     
          ▀▀▀▀         
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
███▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
▐██                 ██▌
 ███▄             ▄███
  ▀███▄         ▄███▀ 
    ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄███▀▀   
        ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       
 
██ ████  ██████  ██████ ███ ████ ██████████████████████


WHITEPAPER






             ▄████▄▄   ▄
█▄          ██████████▀▄
███        ███████████▀
▐████▄     ██████████▌
▄▄██████▄▄▄▄█████████▌
▀████████████████████
  ▀█████████████████
  ▄▄███████████████
   ▀█████████████▀
    ▄▄█████████▀
▀▀██████████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀





▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████▀       ████
██████████████      ▄▄▄████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████            ▐████
██████████            █████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
▀█████████████    ▐███████▀





                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌
bob123
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 561



View Profile WWW
August 31, 2018, 09:42:35 AM
 #25

Also, miners might start to supplement their income by hosting LN Nodes and getting fees from forwarding people's tx's.

The good thing about the LN is that anyone can open a big amount of channels to get payed to route a payment.
You don't need specialized hardware and electricity costs far below the average to compete and earn money.

You just have to provide a funded channel to route the payment. So anyone (including miner) can participate the same way.



Lightning Network earnings are quite small and might not be worth the hassle of balancing thousands of channels.

They are small (or non-existent) at the moment.
But once LN is 'released' and truly tested and fully developed, the fees will increase when the user base and transaction made there increases.

These tx fees will still be way lower than the fees from on-chain tx's, but balancing thousands of channels should definitely make it worth it (at a stage where the LN is fully functional and used).

Kakmakr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1124

★ ChipMixer | Bitcoin mixing service ★


View Profile
September 01, 2018, 02:06:04 PM
 #26

Also, miners might start to supplement their income by hosting LN Nodes and getting fees from forwarding people's tx's. If they stop mining, then the Lightning Network will stop functioning and they will not get any fees from both the LN and the miners fees from their Bitcoin mining.

So in my opinion the Lightning Network actually supplement their income or it might just balance it out, when the Block reward decline. Huh

I don't think if setting up Lightning Nodes will be profitable for them. Lightning Network earnings are quite small and might not be worth the hassle of balancing thousands of channels. If some miners decided to stop mining due to low profitability then the difficulty would drop resulting in higher profit for those who continued to mine. None second-layer solution will replace on-chain transactions. Miners will continue to earn from on-chain fees. What is more profitable for an average miner? Small blocks and spikes in transaction fees or big blocks and small fees?

They are obviously not going to have 1 or 2 channels, but 1000's. The point is, the Lightning Network is not taking away miners fees for them, if they are also hosting Lightning Network nodes. It is a complete change for some of them, but it will supplement income if the Block reward falls away.

Millions of small tx's can also be profitable, even if it is still "small" now. The bigger picture is a business plan change from mining "Only" Bitcoin with ASIC's to a combination, where the miners also host Lightning Network nodes. <Obviously not on the ASICs>  Roll Eyes

BitCryptex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 278



View Profile WWW
September 01, 2018, 04:21:25 PM
 #27

They are obviously not going to have 1 or 2 channels, but 1000's. The point is, the Lightning Network is not taking away miners fees for them, if they are also hosting Lightning Network nodes. It is a complete change for some of them, but it will supplement income if the Block reward falls away.

Keep in mind that the Lightning Network makes new type of payments cost-effective. We would never see so many micro-payments on-chain. Miners in fact benefit from this by confirming transactions which open and close channels. Lightning Network implementations are going to get better and better. Autopilot is not perfect and it can't take care of channel balancing which is important long-term. It should change in the next few years.



APPLY FOR INVESTMENT
GET WHITELISTED

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
          ▄▄▄▄       
     ▄▄█▀▀▀▄▄▀▀▀█▄▄   
   ▄█▀▄▄████████▄▄▀█▄
 ▄█▀▄██████████████▄▀█▄
▐█ ██████████████████ █▌
█▌▐██████████████████▌▐█
█▌▐██████████████████▌▐█
▐█ ██████████████████ █▌
 ▀█▄▀██████████████▀▄█▀
   ▀█▄▀▀████████▀▀▄█▀   
     ▀▀█▄▄▄▀▀▄▄▄█▀▀     
          ▀▀▀▀         
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
███▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
▐██                 ██▌
 ███▄             ▄███
  ▀███▄         ▄███▀ 
    ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄███▀▀   
        ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       
 
██ ████  ██████  ██████ ███ ████ ██████████████████████


WHITEPAPER






             ▄████▄▄   ▄
█▄          ██████████▀▄
███        ███████████▀
▐████▄     ██████████▌
▄▄██████▄▄▄▄█████████▌
▀████████████████████
  ▀█████████████████
  ▄▄███████████████
   ▀█████████████▀
    ▄▄█████████▀
▀▀██████████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀





▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████▀       ████
██████████████      ▄▄▄████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████            ▐████
██████████            █████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
▀█████████████    ▐███████▀





                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌
Docnaster
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 521



View Profile
September 02, 2018, 09:47:43 PM
 #28

I don't think that the block size is much of a problem for scalability. Many new coins are looking to implement a dynamic block size in the future upgrades, and several ICOs are offering coins with dynamically scaled blockchains. Personally, I believe that the scaling solution will come from an off-chain solution via offline payment channels, so we can even stay at the same block size we're at now without much detriment.


       █
      ██
     ██
   ██ ██
 █ ██ ██
██ ██ ██
██ ██ ██
██ ██ ██
██ ██ ██
██ ██ ██

       █
      ██
     ██
   ██ ██
 █ ██ ██
██ ██ ██
██ ██ ██
██ ██ ██
██ ██ ██
██ ██ ██
  B

          ▄▄▄▄▄▄
     ▄▄████████████▄▄
   ▄█████▀▀    ▀▀█████▄
  ████▀            ▀████
 ████                ████
▐███                  ███▌
███▌                  ▐███
▐███           ▄▄     ███▌
 ████         ▀███▄  ▐███
  ████▄         ▀███▄███
   ▀█████▄▄     ▄█████▀
     ▀▀████████████▀▀
          ▀▀▀▀▀▀
T 
.Better. Quick..

.Transparent....






             ▄████▄▄   ▄
█▄          ██████████▀▄
███        ███████████▀
▐████▄     ██████████▌
▄▄██████▄▄▄▄█████████▌
▀████████████████████
  ▀█████████████████
  ▄▄███████████████
   ▀█████████████▀
    ▄▄█████████▀
▀▀██████████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀






▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████▀       ████
██████████████      ▄▄▄████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████            ▐████
██████████            █████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
▀█████████████    ▐███████▀






                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌
S00rabh
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38
Merit: 1


View Profile
September 03, 2018, 09:31:01 AM
 #29

Good that I found this thread. I have been asking this question on r/bitcoin with no real answer. How is that LN will not cause centralization.

As I understand(Please correct if I am wrong) inorder for me to send BTC from A to B, I need to open the channel. So as a user I would have to do the same thing again If I have to send BTC from A to C (Unless B already has an open channel with C).

I think in long run we will see centralized points which have multiple open channel that users would connect to.

I know people dont like it but BCH atleast has a solution or even variable/flexible blocksize would solve in much better case.
bob123
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 561



View Profile WWW
September 03, 2018, 09:50:41 AM
 #30

As I understand(Please correct if I am wrong) inorder for me to send BTC from A to B, I need to open the channel. So as a user I would have to do the same thing again If I have to send BTC from A to C (Unless B already has an open channel with C).

You have to open a channel, yes. But you don't have to open the channel directly with B. You can open a channel with anyone (X) as long as there is a route from X to B.



I think in long run we will see centralized points which have multiple open channel that users would connect to.

That would be fine too. This wouldn't cause a problem at all.
Those hubs don't have any influence or 'power'. If you don't want to connect to them (e.g. because big hubs or fees), don't do it.

People can choose who they connect to.



I know people dont like it but BCH atleast has a solution or even variable/flexible blocksize would solve in much better case.

It's not really a solution. They postpone the problem.
Increasing a variable (blocksize) can never be a scaling solution.

A lot of new problems appear with a bigger blocksize which shouldn't be ignored.

ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1093


Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees


View Profile
September 03, 2018, 10:38:06 AM
 #31

Good that I found this thread. I have been asking this question on r/bitcoin with no real answer. How is that LN will not cause centralization.

As I understand(Please correct if I am wrong) inorder for me to send BTC from A to B, I need to open the channel. So as a user I would have to do the same thing again If I have to send BTC from A to C (Unless B already has an open channel with C).

I think in long run we will see centralized points which have multiple open channel that users would connect to.

I know people dont like it but BCH atleast has a solution or even variable/flexible blocksize would solve in much better case.

You won't get able any answer if you show pessimism/negative views towards Bitcoin on r/bitcoin. You better ask this forum or https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/ if you've question which show pessimism/negative views.

It's hard to avoid centralized centered LN nodes since merchants or nodes with high liquidity/balance naturally would have high connected channel since people would open new channel (merchant) if there aren't any available path/route and there's fewer available path/route (merchants & nodes with high liquidity/balance) if you intend to use LN for bigger payment.

This thread Basics of the Lightning Network - explanation and wallets should give you more information.

I know people dont like it but BCH atleast has a solution or even variable/flexible blocksize would solve in much better case.

It's not really a solution. They postpone the problem.
Increasing a variable (blocksize) can never be a scaling solution.

A lot of new problems appear with a bigger blocksize which shouldn't be ignored.


For them it's not problem/doesn't matter since they think only mining full-nodes matter and miner should/must buy expensive hardware since they earn profit from mining.

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
          ▄▄▄▄       
     ▄▄█▀▀▀▄▄▀▀▀█▄▄   
   ▄█▀▄▄████████▄▄▀█▄
 ▄█▀▄██████████████▄▀█▄
▐█ ██████████████████ █▌
█▌▐██████████████████▌▐█
█▌▐██████████████████▌▐█
▐█ ██████████████████ █▌
 ▀█▄▀██████████████▀▄█▀
   ▀█▄▀▀████████▀▀▄█▀   
     ▀▀█▄▄▄▀▀▄▄▄█▀▀     
          ▀▀▀▀         
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
███▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
▐██                 ██▌
 ███▄             ▄███
  ▀███▄         ▄███▀ 
    ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄███▀▀   
        ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       
 
██ ████  ██████  ██████ ███ ████ ██████████████████████

..WHITEPAPER..





             ▄████▄▄   ▄
█▄          ██████████▀▄
███        ███████████▀
▐████▄     ██████████▌
▄▄██████▄▄▄▄█████████▌
▀████████████████████
  ▀█████████████████
  ▄▄███████████████
   ▀█████████████▀
    ▄▄█████████▀
▀▀██████████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀





▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████▀       ████
██████████████      ▄▄▄████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████            ▐████
██████████            █████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
▀█████████████    ▐███████▀





                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌
BitCryptex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 278



View Profile WWW
September 03, 2018, 03:57:39 PM
 #32

It's hard to avoid centralized centered LN nodes since merchants or nodes with high liquidity/balance naturally would have high connected channel since people would open new channel (merchant) if there aren't any available path/route and there's fewer available path/route (merchants & nodes with high liquidity/balance) if you intend to use LN for bigger payment.

The Lightning Network was designed to handle mostly micro-payments. The maximum amount of bitcoins you can send right now (in a single transaction) is about 0.041 BTC. The issue you mentioned can be solved by introducing multi-path payments which are being developed. It's still a bit unsafe to open a few big channels since there is no proper backup feature in many wallets. I would wait for eltoo with that. Lightning Network still needs some time for development but given the fact that there are so many nodes, there shouldn't be any problems with its adoption.



APPLY FOR INVESTMENT
GET WHITELISTED

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
          ▄▄▄▄       
     ▄▄█▀▀▀▄▄▀▀▀█▄▄   
   ▄█▀▄▄████████▄▄▀█▄
 ▄█▀▄██████████████▄▀█▄
▐█ ██████████████████ █▌
█▌▐██████████████████▌▐█
█▌▐██████████████████▌▐█
▐█ ██████████████████ █▌
 ▀█▄▀██████████████▀▄█▀
   ▀█▄▀▀████████▀▀▄█▀   
     ▀▀█▄▄▄▀▀▄▄▄█▀▀     
          ▀▀▀▀         
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
███▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
▐██                 ██▌
 ███▄             ▄███
  ▀███▄         ▄███▀ 
    ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄███▀▀   
        ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       
 
██ ████  ██████  ██████ ███ ████ ██████████████████████


WHITEPAPER






             ▄████▄▄   ▄
█▄          ██████████▀▄
███        ███████████▀
▐████▄     ██████████▌
▄▄██████▄▄▄▄█████████▌
▀████████████████████
  ▀█████████████████
  ▄▄███████████████
   ▀█████████████▀
    ▄▄█████████▀
▀▀██████████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀





▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████▀       ████
██████████████      ▄▄▄████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████            ▐████
██████████            █████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
▀█████████████    ▐███████▀





                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌
S00rabh
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38
Merit: 1


View Profile
September 04, 2018, 06:32:32 AM
 #33


That would be fine too. This wouldn't cause a problem at all.
Those hubs don't have any influence or 'power'. If you don't want to connect to them (e.g. because big hubs or fees), don't do it.

People can choose who they connect to.

Yea, I dont think that would be fine. People can connect to what ever they want until they have options to connect. When they dont have they would have to connect to these centralized points/


It's not really a solution. They postpone the problem.
Increasing a variable (blocksize) can never be a scaling solution.

A lot of new problems appear with a bigger blocksize which shouldn't be ignored.


Agreed, its not a solution but better then 1Mb block. Minor update to 2Mb or 4Mb would have solved lot of pressure when backlogs were high.
S00rabh
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38
Merit: 1


View Profile
September 04, 2018, 06:43:31 AM
 #34


You won't get able any answer if you show pessimism/negative views towards Bitcoin on r/bitcoin. You better ask this forum or


Actually I did get an answer but not a proper one. Dont know if it was an admin but whoever it was said he will get back to me and never did. Then again its not a customer service but thats ok.

Still to point out, How does it matter if I was showing negative view?
Is current structure so weak that it wont stand any criticism?


It's hard to avoid centralized centered LN nodes since merchants or nodes with high liquidity/balance naturally would have high connected channel since people would open new channel (merchant) if there aren't any available path/route and there's fewer available path/route (merchants & nodes with high liquidity/balance) if you intend to use LN for bigger payment.

This thread Basics of the Lightning Network - explanation and wallets should give you more information.

I know, that's my concern. I dont have anything better to offer but I can point out what I see as an upcoming problem.


It's not really a solution. They postpone the problem.
Increasing a variable (blocksize) can never be a scaling solution.

A lot of new problems appear with a bigger blocksize which shouldn't be ignored.


What kind of problem are you referring to. I would like to read something on it.
bob123
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 561



View Profile WWW
September 04, 2018, 06:51:41 AM
 #35

Yea, I dont think that would be fine. People can connect to what ever they want until they have options to connect. When they dont have they would have to connect to these centralized points/

But people CAN choose.
They CAN connect to whoever they want. That's the point.

Hubs are being built if people want to build them. And also.. note that Hubs are still decentralized. There is a difference between decentralized and distributed.
While the LN probably won't be completely distributed, it WILL be and currently IS decentralized.



Agreed, its not a solution but better then 1Mb block. Minor update to 2Mb or 4Mb would have solved lot of pressure when backlogs were high.

SegWit introduced the block weight.
With 100% segwit transactions, there is room for 4x more transactions inside a block than pre-segwit.

Currently, blocks are about 2,4 MB big (incl. witness data).

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!