Flaws in LN (Lightning Network).

[Diamond Dallas Page]

The LN was tried with a purposeful DDOS exertion, which caused the loss of 20% of hubs. Be that as it may, an ongoing analysis likewise noted different imperfections in the system, beginning with the way that the whole number of hubs is little contrasted with the Bitcoin Core system of hubs. The biggest number of LN hubs stretched around 1,000. In the meantime, Bitcoin Core hubs have developed in the previous months, to 9,277, from around 7,000 amid the season of the SegWit2X discusses.

Also, even with a developing number of hubs, the wasteful channels between them imply that the Lightning Network is fairly disarranged and eccentric in taking care of exchanges. The central issue is finding a reasonable course between beneficiaries, notwithstanding the little broad limit of the network. Indeed, even with in excess of 1,100 hubs detailed, the network does not deal with exchanges above $35, and the general every day stack is worth around $50,000.

[DooMAD]

LN Fees are currently cheap because many hub operators are operating at a LOSS.
Dummies can only give away things for free for so long until they have to raise the price.

How can they be operating at a loss if they're saving money by cutting down on their own on-chain transaction fees?  Something tells me you need to research this stuff a little more before you go saying stuff that sounds pretty dumb.

Nope many alts have cheaper transaction fees.
IE:
Zeitcoin Transaction fee is   $0.0000025  US
Mintcoin Transaction fee is  $0.0000129   US

As a proportion of the coin's value, that's hardly an impressive achievement.  Those crapcoins you're talking about are only worth a tiny fraction of a penny.

$0.000129 USD is the current value of a single Mintcoin.  That means you'd have to spend 0.1 mintcoin as a transaction fee.  Imagine if Bitcoin's fee was 0.1 BTC?  Not exactly what a sensible person would call good value for money.  Go back to hyping up your worthless Shitecoin in the altcoins subforum and leave the LN discussion to the grown-ups.

[Zin-Zang]

LN Fees are currently cheap because many hub operators are operating at a LOSS.
Dummies can only give away things for free for so long until they have to raise the price.

How can they be operating at a loss if they're saving money by cutting down on their own on-chain transaction fees?  Something tells me you need to research this stuff a little more before you go saying stuff that sounds pretty dumb.

Something tells me your ridiculous LN fanaticism makes you too stupid to comprehend.
Input Costs Matter, ignoring them is why many farmers go out of business.
And if LN hubs are to earn a profit, enough to maintain a decent/secure infrastructure their prices are going to increase.
What you have now is a bunch of hobbyist playing at maintaining a network.

Nope many alts have cheaper transaction fees.
IE:
Zeitcoin Transaction fee is   $0.0000025  US
Mintcoin Transaction fee is  $0.0000129   US

As a proportion of the coin's value, that's hardly an impressive achievement.  Those crapcoins you're talking about are only worth a tiny fraction of a penny.

$0.000129 USD is the current value of a single Mintcoin.  That means you'd have to spend 0.1 mintcoin as a transaction fee.  Imagine if Bitcoin's fee was 0.1 BTC?  Not exactly what a sensible person would call good value for money.  Go back to hyping up your worthless Shitecoin in the altcoins subforum and leave the LN discussion to the grown-ups.

Hate is all you have, No wonder you are such a pathetic debater.  

Math does not lie.  Sad your comprehension skills are so weak.

FYI:
I Said MANY ALTs have cheaper transaction fees, I only list two.

FYI2:
Bitcoin can never truly be a Global Currency as it is too scarce making even the 8 digit below zero nonsense cost too much for the majority of the world populace,
Zeit & Mint both have a large enough quantity to be global currencies and both already exceed bitcoin's onchain capacity.
And there are other alts that also exceed bitcoin in multiple aspects, I guess the truth is too much for you.      

FYI3:
LN is a 3rd party offchain payment system , it is in no way limited to bitcoin only. (all it needs is a segwit infected blockchain)
LN can also use Litecoin or Groestlcoin and their offchain transaction fees would be much cheaper than using bitcoin,
when it actually needs to be usable by the public and not just a hobby experiment like it is now.

[Wind_FURY]

Zeitcoins and Mintcoins? Why would I trade my very valuable Bitcoins to use those illiquid, no-value altcoins? That is a stupid counter-proposal to discourage LN usage. Hahaha.

But the evidence today is showing that LN fees are very cheap.

Cheap? I run the site https://www.lightningslotmachine.com/, most transactions, maybe 75%. Both sending and receiving payments have 0 satoshi as a fee.

A lot have 1 satoshi as a fee. The most I have ever seen is 8 satoshi. That's 0.0005152159 USD

I think is fair to say that Bitcoin is now the blockchain with the lowest fees.

Unfairly cheap.

[Zin-Zang]

Zeitcoins and Mintcoins? Why would I trade my very valuable Bitcoins to use those illiquid, no-value altcoins? That is a stupid counter-proposal to discourage LN usage. Hahaha.

Hmm,  I can think of 1 reason.  
Zeitcoin has outperformed bitcoin in price growth from Sept 2014 until Today.
As of today, ZEIT is over 60X it's Sept 2014 value, while Bitcoin is only ~15X it's Sept 2014 value.
&
Well Mintcoin has over $217600 US Dollars on 1 Market in liquidity, I doubt you could exceed that.

I could care less if you use LN, but don't lie and say it's transaction fees are cheaper than altcoins when they are not.
You also totally missed the fact that using litecoin or groestlcoin would most likely be cheaper than using bitcoin with LN.
The fact that LN hubs can work with any coin that activated segwit seems to elude you.

[DooMAD]

You also totally missed the fact that using litecoin or groestlcoin would most likely be cheaper than using bitcoin with LN.
The fact that LN hubs can work with any coin that activated segwit seems to elude you.

It hasn't eluded us.  We're looking forward to enhanced interoperability between chains without having to deposit funds into an exchange.  It's a feature, not a bug.

Zeitcoins and Mintcoins? Why would I trade my very valuable Bitcoins to use those illiquid, no-value altcoins? That is a stupid counter-proposal to discourage LN usage. Hahaha.

Hmm,  I can think of 1 reason.  
Zeitcoin has outperformed bitcoin in price growth from Sept 2014 until Today.
As of today, ZEIT is over 60X it's Sept 2014 value

So instead of being completely worthless, it's now only almost worthless?  Don't worry, I'm sure it will be back to completely worthless soon enough.

[HeRetiK]

[...]

I could care less if you use LN, but don't lie and say it's transaction fees are cheaper than altcoins when they are not.
You also totally missed the fact that using litecoin or groestlcoin would most likely be cheaper than using bitcoin with LN.
The fact that LN hubs can work with any coin that activated segwit seems to elude you.

"LN is cheaper than any decentralized altcoin that sees some actual usage"

There.

It's easy to keep transaction fees low if either a) the coin sees very little to no transactions, b) currency issuance and consensus is centrally controlled or c) decentralization is being sacrificed to blockchain bloat.

[Zin-Zang]

You also totally missed the fact that using litecoin or groestlcoin would most likely be cheaper than using bitcoin with LN.
The fact that LN hubs can work with any coin that activated segwit seems to elude you.

It hasn't eluded us.  We're looking forward to enhanced interoperability between chains without having to deposit funds into an exchange.
It's a feature, not a bug.

And yet you appear clueless to the fact that an LN Hub will require at minimum a money transmitter license because of it.
In the US , Like of Kind Exchanges between Crypto is now a Taxable event , every time,
so those LN Hubs that operate with even a single channel will be required by US Law to turn over all records to the US Tax Authority.
Enjoy your feature.  

Zeitcoins and Mintcoins? Why would I trade my very valuable Bitcoins to use those illiquid, no-value altcoins? That is a stupid counter-proposal to discourage LN usage. Hahaha.

Hmm,  I can think of 1 reason.  
Zeitcoin has outperformed bitcoin in price growth from Sept 2014 until Today.
As of today, ZEIT is over 60X it's Sept 2014 value

So instead of being completely worthless, it's now only almost worthless?  Don't worry, I'm sure it will be back to completely worthless soon enough.

I could say Bitcoin will be back to completely worthless soon enough also.

Difference is Bitcoin Network will Collapse if the price per bitcoin does not exceed production cost of over $3000 per bitcoin.
ZEITCOIN Network is resistant to such economic factors and can continue indefinitely.
Time will show which coin has the Ultimate Design.  
 

FYI:   
(Both Money Transmitters & Banks follow "Full KYC/AML" regulations . )
For those like doomad that don't know.

[lightningslotmachine]

I could say Bitcoin will be back to completely worthless soon enough also.

Difference is Bitcoin Network will Collapse if the price per bitcoin does not exceed production cost of over $3000 per bitcoin.
ZEITCOIN Network is resistant to such economic factors and can continue indefinitely.
Time will show which coin has the Ultimate Design.  
 

Zeitcoin volume of all transactions last 24 hours was 75 USD. What a joke.
I'm guessing it's a grand total of one user that use this coin. I guess that is you.

Why do you even post in this forum, it's a discussion about Bitcoin and lightning. Nobody cares about your shitcoin.

[bob123]

FYI:
I Said MANY ALTs have cheaper transaction fees, I only list two.

True. And all of them are way less secured than bitcoin.

I'd rather pay a few cents to have a transaction being secured, than paying the fraction of a cent to have 0 protection.

FYI2:
Bitcoin can never truly be a Global Currency as it is too scarce making even the 8 digit below zero nonsense cost too much for the majority of the world populace,
Zeit & Mint both have a large enough quantity to be global currencies and both already exceed bitcoin's onchain capacity.

1 satoshi is too expensive ? Currently that's 0.00006481 $.
Also, making the minimal unit smaller only requires a softfork (e.g. to divide 1 satoshi into 1.000.000 units). This can always be done when necessary.

Those shitcoins are both worthless. A coin without any use (security = 0) can never be a 'global currency'.

FYI3:
LN is a 3rd party offchain payment system

3rd party ?
It's called open source development. Anyone is free to contribute.

Additionally, LN is just ONE implementation of HTLC's.

Why do you even post in this forum, it's a discussion about Bitcoin and lightning. Nobody cares about your shitcoin.

This.

[DooMAD]

Why do you even post in this forum, it's a discussion about Bitcoin and lightning. Nobody cares about your shitcoin.

If he wants to derail this Lightning thread to say how much better his shitcoin is, perhaps he's merely extending an invitation to all of us to derail his shitcoin thread with how much better Lightning is?  We can play that game if he wants.  

And yet you appear clueless to the fact that an LN Hub will require at minimum a money transmitter license because of it.
In the US , Like of Kind Exchanges between Crypto is now a Taxable event , every time,
so those LN Hubs that operate with even a single channel will be required by US Law to turn over all records to the US Tax Authority.
Enjoy your feature.  

So first it was "full KYC/AML" for Lightning hubs, but now it's only "at minimum a money transmitter licence"?  I wonder what it'll be next month when you walk it back a little further each and every time.  

[Zin-Zang]

(Both Money Transmitters & Banks follow "Full KYC/AML" regulations . )
For those like doomad that don't know.

New Flaw in LN Network ,

Wu & Antpool have just recently started refusing to include segwit transactions in their blocks.
Since they are a major player this can delay the onchain redemption of bitcoins and
INCREASE the potential for the LN funds to be stolen by a counter-party.
* Interestingly enough they could potentially cause segwit transactions to cost more than normal onchain transactions. *  
* As LN begins stealing more transaction fees from the onchain miners, you can almost guarantee the other onchain miners will follow suit to protect their transaction fee profit from the LN offchain network. *

If more miners join them and they reach 51%, they can effectively kill the LN offchain network!

FYI:
It is a brilliant move on the part of Wu, to eventually make segwit no longer cost effective compared to the normal onchain transactions.
Effectively killing his offchain competition for bitcoin transaction fees.
The only real question is how long before the other bitcoin onchain miners get smart and follow his lead.
(As their monetary best interest is in onchain fees and not offchain fees which they see no profit.)

* No one can stop him unless, there is a Hard Fork to take away the miner's ability to pick transactions. *
Good Luck with that. 

[ABCbits]

New Flaw in LN Network ,

Technically, it's on-chain flaw where miners can choose specific transaction to be included/excluded.

Wu & Antpool have just recently started refusing to include segwit transactions in their blocks.
Since they are a major player this can delay the onchain redefinition of bitcoins and
INCREASE the potential for the LN funds to be stolen by a counter-party.
* Interestingly enough they could potentially cause segwit transactions to cost more than normal onchain transactions. *  

Where's the source? There's no such information on twitter or reddit. Even if it's true, i doubt they would do that for long since it's MAD scenario since they could lose value of mined Bitcoin since people might be panic (unless they don't care about wasting money or losing profit).

But AFAIK when there's 2 valid conflicting transaction which have different height timelock, the transaction with lower height timelock included on-block.

[Zin-Zang]

Wu & Antpool have just recently started refusing to include segwit transactions in their blocks.
Since they are a major player this can delay the onchain redefinition of bitcoins and
INCREASE the potential for the LN funds to be stolen by a counter-party.
* Interestingly enough they could potentially cause segwit transactions to cost more than normal onchain transactions. *  

Where's the source? There's no such information on twitter or reddit.

Reddit Source : https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/9sex11/jihan_no_longer_includes_segwit_transactions_last/

Jihan no longer includes segwit transactions

If you look at my mempool statistics at Oct 27, around 15:00 UTC, this behaviour is obvious.
Antpool found four consecutive blocks, so there were a lot of segwit transactions accumulating in the mempool that they didn't take.

LN has zero effect on on-chain transactions. It absolutely cannot force miners to mine your transaction.

New Flaw in LN Network ,

Technically, it's on-chain flaw where miners can choose specific transaction to be included/excluded.

No argument there allowing the miners to pick and choose which transactions are included per block
that can be used against the users was always a bad idea instead of just processing all available transactions that would fit.
But that was added by the bitcore dev team, and the only way they can remove it is a Hard Fork, but that also destroys the fee structure almost guaranteeing spam transaction could clog and kill the onchain network without fee increases to prevent it.
In the meantime they can use it to kill the LN offchain network, and so it becomes The Major Flaw in LN!

 

[DooMAD]

Wu & Antpool have just recently started refusing to include segwit transactions in their blocks.

Except that around two hours ago, AntPool mined this block which, at 1026.434 KB, must include at least some SegWit transactions.  

And around 18 hours ago, AntPool also mined this block which, at 1157.285 KB, must also include at least some SegWit transactions.

It's really not hard to actually verify this stuff.  It's all there in the open to see.  Any more Redditard drivel you'd like us to debunk?

[Zin-Zang]

Wu & Antpool have just recently started refusing to include segwit transactions in their blocks.

Except that around two hours ago, AntPool mined this block which, at 1026.434 KB, must include at least some SegWit transactions.  

And around 18 hours ago, AntPool also mined this block which, at 1157.285 KB, must also include at least some SegWit transactions.

It's really not hard to actually verify this stuff.  It's all there in the open to see.  Any more Redditard drivel you'd like us to debunk?

The fact they mined 4 blocks in a row , and ignored all segwit transactions escapes you.

Your entire LN network is depending on the ONChain Miners to include segwit transactions, if they do the unthinkable to you and just ignore all segwit transactions , they can kill their offchain competitor without breaking a sweat.

Whether it was done on purpose or accident , the truth is now apparent,
the Onchain Miners can kill LN at any point they so choose and you can't stop them, without a Hard Fork, which they won't agree too.  

It is now LN Most Major Flaw, because at some point transactions fees will matter more and more to the Bitcoin Miners with each halving.

Enjoy your LN house of cards, by the way Jihan and 3 others can set it on fire anytime they like.    

[DooMAD]

The fact they mined 4 blocks in a row , and ignored all segwit transactions escapes you.

The fact that your claim was immediately proven wrong but you still keep talking shit escapes you.  Sometimes miners prioritise the block reward over the fees and don't include many (or any) transactions in their block.  It's hardly a new phenomenon.  And when they do include a small number of transactions, they naturally choose the ones with the highest fees (i.e. not the SegWit ones).  So thank you for once again demonstrating that users generally pay lower fees when they use SegWit.  It's nice of you to show your support in this way.  The more you highlight the advantages, the more users are likely to adopt SegWit and start saving money.

[Rath_]

Ignoring the fact that LN can be totally destroyed by 51% of the miners

The same applies to Bitcoin, doesn't it? This kind of attack would be used for revising already confirmed on-chain transactions with far higher amount of BTC rather than for manipulating channels which have a maximum capacity of about 0.16 BTC.

[Zin-Zang]

Ignoring the fact that LN can be totally destroyed by 51% of the miners

The same applies to Bitcoin, doesn't it? This kind of attack would be used for revising already confirmed on-chain transactions with far higher amount of BTC rather than for manipulating channels which have a maximum capacity of about 0.16 BTC.

True on the danger to onchain,
But causing the segwit transactions to require higher fees than normal onchain transactions could be done with less than 51%.

Untrue on the capacity limit of .16 btc .
If the miners blocked all segwit transactions ,
they destroy access or allow to be stolen by counter-parties the Entire Amount of Bitcoin stored in LN.
All Channels would be at risk upon expiration.


Difference is this ,
if the miners 51% attack their onchain transaction , they kill their own network and their own ability to make money.
(This hurts the Bitcoin Miners directly.)

If the miners 51% ignore all segwit transactions, they kill an Offchain COMPETITOR that was stealing fees that could have been theirs.
(This kills LN and has no effect on their onchain profits, except an increase in their transaction fees.)
(If you ran a Business and you could put your competitor out of business next door by merely ignoring them,
therefore increasing your own Business Profit and assuring market share, you be kind of stupid not to ignore them.)

Jihan & other onchain miners are alot of things, stupid is not one of them.

FYI:
I now so dub this potential LN Flaw: The 51% Ignore Segwit Attack

[achow101]

This thread is devolving into flaming each other. Thus it will be locked.