Does Lighting Netowork really scale and for what cost?

[nutildah]

OK first of all you're doing some mass averaging here. Thats NOT the same thing as a median!

your using median.. thats so much fail on you
4,4,5,8,16
your median is 5
average is 7.4
so your under estimating.. (your pink fluffy clouding numbers)

This makes little to no sense. "Median" the most commonly used tx fee, aka 4 cents.

secondly, lack of a fee priority mechanism that is designed to cost an individual more if they individally bloat a block by sending a transaction with one confirm over and over, causes EVERYONE to pay more

You're right; I've been paying 8 cents. Not exactly a deal-breaker.

the "free market" of a fee market is not helpful. its actually harmful

And what's your alternative?

a proper fee formulae needs to come back in play that actually treats people individually based on their circumstances...

Uh, right, I also mentioned people that pay a $1.00 fee to transact $10,000 worth of BTC. What's the holdup?

if everyone paid 4cents everyone wont get "fast" transacting

Nobody said that they will.

plus your using the same lame argument that it can cost you as little as 10cents to make a cup of coffee at home. so expect to pay that for all coffee no matter where you go

You've gone beyond reaching into delusion.

as for "not exactly expensive". im guessing your ignorant to the part of the planet where under 20cents is an hours labour

you do know that things are not like the 1980's
yea no one is going to spend $600 on an iphone.. but there are cheaper smartphones people have. oh and as for no access to internet/cellular service.. maybe you need to research Mpesa. and countries which skipped passed landlines and decades of 54k, 0.5mb-5mb broadband, fibre..  yep skipped all that and moved straight to 4g/5g

People do spend actually $900 on an iPhone... And a $40 smart phone isn't necessarily "cheap" to a lot of people BTW. All you're doing is highlighting how out of touch with the world you are.

and as for your mindset that bitcoin should only be for developed countries and rich people.. thats putting up barriers of entry and excluding people.

Show me where in the white paper it says bitcoin was supposed to be used by absolutely everybody on planet earth.

im not the one saying bitcoin is bad.

you are actually. you tear down bitcoin at every turn and offer no viable alternatives. feel free to fork a "Frank Coin" and lets see how far you get with it. Please -- instead of commenting on this forum, that's really where your time would best be served.

lets get to the point. i understand that you thinking 20cents is reasonable, because your greed is HOPING that if you get LUCKY to be a factory you can charge upto 19cents and still be seen as cheaper..

What a weird argument. Four cents Franky. The magic number is four cents.

but pushing bitcoin networks to a "its ok to be expensive for millions of people" is not open barrierless mindset. thats just selfish hope of greed

Frank. The world is a big place. Obviously bitcoin can't be viable for all of them. We're sorry to let you down.

[franky1]

This makes little to no sense. "Median" the most commonly used tx fee, aka 4 cents.

Show me where in the white paper it says bitcoin was supposed to be used by absolutely everybody on planet earth.

you tear down bitcoin at every turn and offer no viable alternatives. feel free to fork a "Frank Coin" and lets see how far you get with it. Please -- instead of commenting on this forum, that's really where your time would best be served.

A. median is not the most commonly used number!!
1,1,1,1,1,5,11,11,11,11,11   median =5 but is used only once
plus on a 5seat bus wont get you a seat...
by using average 5.9 would be a case that i get ahead of you in the queue

median is not a middle "value" of a bunch of numbers.. median doesnt even count the values
its just the middle position.
you cant use position metric to work out a best value..

B. no one said everyone.. but it shouldnt exclude a certain class of people.
i guess your greed of wanting bitcoin only for the privileged out weighs the old ethos of open borderless unbanked..
anyway
show me how LN fits the concept of bitcoin
"   A  purely   peer-to-peer   version   of   electronic   cash   would   allow   online
payments   to   be   sent   directly   from   one   party   to   another   without   going   through   a
financial institution.   Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending"

1. directly from one party to another = no routing, no hubs, no custodians, no factories
2. without going through a financial institution = no hubs/custodians/factories
3. benefit lost if a trusted third party is still required = no factories/custodians/hubs

and dont get me started on the "control of ownership".. you wont win

C. an example of a fee formula thats not just network broad "everyone pays more so everyone should use LN" u ask.. well:

there are many ways. to ofset the spammers from the ones that wont benefit
here is one which doesnt cause every user on the bitcoin network needing an increasing average fee.
(EG current situation. if one person spams txs into a block everyone has to pay a higher fee to bribe a pool)

while also (unbiasedly) persuading the spam every block regular spenders who 'could' benefit from LN to then use it
as using the bitcoin network is costing just the spammers more

so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor(like the old one). not about a network wide everyone should pay an estimated average increased fee(like currently) but about respend spam and bloaters pay more, and everyone else pays for what they use dependant on personal circumstance.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours because they are happy to wait to get cheaper fees.. or rduce the lock if they want priority by paying more for less delay.

and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae with was more about the value of the tx


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain.
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending often you pay the ultimate price

[squatter]

We don't need to be subtle: Blockchains don't scale well and transaction size can only be optimized so much. Blockchains can't give us exponentially increased throughput without serious security and performance trade-offs. I'm okay offloading much of that throughput off-chain if we can do so in a secure way, without third party trust. What's the problem with multiple interoperable protocols working together?

1. you assume that offloading alot of bitcoin utility onto the separate network will happen.
got any stats to back that up??

No. You obviously don't have any either since they would be future projections based on no historical data. Any data from the present won't account for either Lightning's nor Bitcoin's network effect.

We don't need stats to know what people will do if the incentives exist for people to use Lightning. Nearly free and instant transactions is quite a strong incentive.

2. take LN as the 2016 concept 2nd party control (without custodial factory3rd party(goldfortknox analogy)), whereby to have reliant connections. you are going to need 5 channels with different people. and your counterpart will need 5 channels. (incase people are offline, incase people raid funds of one channel, blah blah blah)

the amount of data onchain per user per month(because most wont want to put life savings in and locked up for life, they will in reality only budget 2-4 weeks) means about 10-20 transactions a month onchain just to get in and out of LN

That analogy is absurd, as I've told you before. Stop being so dishonest. There is no third party custody whatsoever.

You don't need five channels with different people if you have one channel open with a well-connected node/hub. You're also completely exaggerating regarding the number of on-chain transactions required. You're entire post is built on these false premises for which you have no evidence.

[franky1]

instant transactions is quite a strong incentive.

ok under your mindset
instant........
........ IF you have one channel open with a well connected node/hub (custodian)
...... IF said node is online
.....IF the other conncted routes are online
...IF the destination is online
.IF said nodes has value available to route for you

actually USE LN
actually listen to LN devs
actually see its not a simple one channel open everything is fluffy cloud perfect

You don't need five channels with different people if

........ IF you have one channel open with a well connected node/hub (custodian)
...... IF said node is online
.....IF the other conncted routes are online
...IF the destination is online
.IF said nodes has value available to route for you

actually USE LN
actually listen to LN devs
actually see its not a simple one channel open everything is fluffy cloud perfect

and to any one thats actually open minded
squatter is saying he visions LN where people are vaulting up with centralised hubs

[Zin-Zang]

That analogy is absurd, as I've told you before. Stop being so dishonest. There is no third party custody whatsoever.

There is third party control, so Boom Baby , your mind is blown.

Want Proof , rebroadcast an old LN transaction that has newer transaction after it.
That third party control you don't believe in , will confiscate your entire LN amount.

Go ahead, I double dog you.  


 

[DooMAD]

B. no one said everyone.. but it shouldnt exclude a certain class of people.
i guess your greed of wanting bitcoin only for the privileged out weighs the old ethos of open borderless unbanked..
anyway
show me how LN fits the concept of bitcoin
"   A  purely   peer-to-peer   version   of   electronic   cash   would   allow   online
payments   to   be   sent   directly   from   one   party   to   another   without   going   through   a
financial institution.   Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending"

If only a small number of nodes exist, those nodes would effectively become the new financial institutions that users on the network are forced to rely on.  Using Bitcoin isn't just about the cost of transactions, it's about the cost of being able to run a full node if you want to.  Obviously we know which of those qualities you're willing to throw under the bus to get what you want.  Just because you might be able to afford a high-bandwidth internet package with generous usage limits, it doesn't mean those in other parts of the world can.  Why do you want to exclude the non-wealthy from being able to run a node?  

[franky1]

That analogy is absurd, as I've told you before. Stop being so dishonest. There is no third party custody whatsoever.

There is third party control, so Boom Baby , your mind is blown.

Want Proof , rebroadcast an old LN transaction that has newer transaction after it.
That third party control you don't believe in , will confiscate your entire LN amount.

Go ahead, I double dog you.  
 

dont worry about squatter...
.. squatter is only just getting to grips with 2nd party concept of LN 2016 (channel co-signing)
.. ill say it will be another 6 months-2 years before he catches up 3rd party concept of LN 2018 (factories)

[franky1]

B. no one said everyone.. but it shouldnt exclude a certain class of people.
i guess your greed of wanting bitcoin only for the privileged out weighs the old ethos of open borderless unbanked..
anyway
show me how LN fits the concept of bitcoin
"   A  purely   peer-to-peer   version   of   electronic   cash   would   allow   online
payments   to   be   sent   directly   from   one   party   to   another   without   going   through   a
financial institution.   Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending"

If only a small number of nodes exist, those nodes would effectively become the new financial institutions that users on the network are forced to rely on.  Using Bitcoin isn't just about the cost of transactions, it's about the cost of being able to run a full node if you want to.

running a node is cheap
im not the one saying its expensive. i am not the one throwing the empty fears ..
you truly failed at trying to flip the argument.. but have a nice day

Obviously we know which of those qualities you're willing to throw under the bus to get what you want.  

your the one that wants people to f**k off the network and use other networks
your the one that claims people wont be able to run full nodes..

Just because you might be able to afford a high-bandwidth internet package with generous usage limits, it doesn't mean those in other parts of the world can.  Why do you want to exclude the non-wealthy from being able to run a node?  

funny part is LN is going to do what your flip flopping about
LN masternodes monitoring multiple chains so that atomic swaps can happen makes a node have more challenges than just a bitcoin node.
so using LN and being a msternode for LN is not a solution but the comedy that if LN masternodes wont be a problem, then logic is a node for one coin is less of a problem.. thus by you promoting LN means you subtly admit that blockchains are not a problem

but putting aside the comedy of "nodes monitoring 3-5 coins is ok but monitoring one coin is costly"

the real concern people have is they dont want to have to put funds into a vaulted lockup and then only transact when another party is online to agree on moving funds. if they have available funds to move in their channels on your behalf..

in bitcoin
you dont need to be a full node. you dont need to wait for a particular node to be online to transact. you dont have to hope the other person has balance to be part of your payment route...

in LN
to avoid factories. you do need to be a master node. you do have to wait for particular nodes to be online, you do have to hope the other person has balance to be part of your payment route

but have a nice day. oh and please do your research

[DooMAD]

*usual horseshit*

How about you just let people use it and make up their own minds, like you keep pretending you want them to?  

But, of course, that doesn't suit your goals, so you have to keep telling people how terrible Lightning is, because if you can scare them into not using it, they'll never be able to form their own opinion.  How convenient.  

your the one that wants people to f**k off the network and use other networks

Your "other networks" catchphrase isn't going to cut it anymore.  

your the one that claims people wont be able to run full nodes..

You seem to have a short memory.  Here is a recent topic where someone was concerned about the overall size of the blockchain.  You had the first response and literally told them to use SPV because they weren't a business:

those only getting paid once a month and only wanting to use bitcoin just to buy groceries to be delivered next day, can just use spv wallets. not everyone needs to be a full node and monitor ~2000 tx every 10 minutes if they are only personally involved in 1 tx a day/week

if you are a business NEEDING to be monitoring more than just a couple addresses. then you probably for other business purposes have your computers on a 4 year tax deductibles set-up where you replace equipment. and you probably hav a business internet plan. rather than a home user plan

As usual, your position is completely untenable.    

[franky1]

But, of course, that doesn't suit your goals, so you have to keep telling people how terrible Lightning is, because if you can scare them into not using it, they'll never be able to form their own opinion.  How convenient.  

my points is not that LN should not be used. but that its not:
bitcoins solution to scaling
a bitcoin feature
going to met peoples expectations
promoted honestly

trying to keep bitcoins scaling limited, just to push people into LN is bad.
bitcoins network needs to scale whether LN becoms a thing or not.

so having silly people like yourself promoting that bitcoin shouldnt scale because LN solves all the issues is your failing

[franky1]

those only getting paid once a month and only wanting to use bitcoin just to buy groceries to be delivered next day, can just use spv wallets. not everyone needs to be a full node and monitor ~2000 tx every 10 minutes if they are only personally involved in 1 tx a day/week

if you are a business NEEDING to be monitoring more than just a couple addresses. then you probably for other business purposes have your computers on a 4 year tax deductibles set-up where you replace equipment. and you probably hav a business internet plan. rather than a home user plan

As usual, your position is completely untenable.    

CAN vs NEED
eg to avoid third party factories in LN your will NEED to be a master node of LN
but you CAN just be a phone app spv user.

CAN vs NEED
eg to avoid third party services in  bitcoin your CAN do so still without the NEED to be a full node of bitcoin
but you CAN just be a full node user.
but you CAN just be a phone app spv user.

because you dont NEED to monitor the blockchain to send a payment on bitcoin if your just a single users the NEED for everyone to be a full node is less required, even to avoid third party services you do not NEED to run a full node

its the same thing as also mentioned in other topics. if bandwidth is limited its better if you can reduce the node connections to reduce your bandwdith usage as slow internet users dont NEED to have 100 connections to other nodes on the bitcoin network. and infact having 100 connections to other nodes on the bitcoin network is not helping bitcoin propogation/latency but actually hurting it.

[hv_]

But, of course, that doesn't suit your goals, so you have to keep telling people how terrible Lightning is, because if you can scare them into not using it, they'll never be able to form their own opinion.  How convenient.  

my points is not that LN should not be used. but that its not:
bitcoins solution to scaling
a bitcoin feature
going to met peoples expectations
promoted honestly

trying to keep bitcoins scaling limited, just to push people into LN is bad.
bitcoins network needs to scale whether LN becoms a thing or not.

so having silly people like yourself promoting that bitcoin shouldnt scale because LN solves all the issues is your failing

The ship has sailed.

The scaling needs to be done on EVERY part that Bitcoin uses, and most will finally get it, that this is possible industrial style - multi industrial, not only Blockstream...


Also legal factors will be a thing to be considered properly so honest mining is crucial imo.

[DooMAD]

my points is not that LN should not be used. but that its not:
bitcoins solution to scaling

But it helps.  It's just one of the things being worked on.  And if it doesn't work, I'm sure we'll try other things you'll probably hate just as much because you can't be enthusiastic about anything other than your own preconceived ideas.  You can't stop people being excited by the potential of new technologies.  If you see anything that's factually incorrect, call it out.  But so far, the largest quantity of factually incorrect information has come directly from you.  Maybe try showing just a hint of optimism for the future?  Go with the flow and see how it turns out, perhaps?

a bitcoin feature

Not solely.  No one is claiming Bitcoin is the only blockchain that wants to take advantage of LN.  The very fact that more than one chain wants to implement it should clue you in to the fact that it's clearly desirable to have.  

going to met peoples expectations

Pretending you speak for everyone again?  
Pretending everyone is too stupid to comprehend what's being said about LN?
Pretending that people running full nodes are too dumb to know what roadmap they're supporting when they decided not to switch to another client, despite having ample opportunity to do so?

It's your expectations that need adjusting.  We're not doing what you want right now.  Your proposals don't have adequate support.  

promoted honestly

As if you even know the meaning of the world "honest".  And oh, what's on that very next line of your post, I wonder?

trying to keep bitcoins scaling limited, just to push people into LN is bad.

That's a lie right there.  Didn't take you long.  No one is trying to limit scaling.  Your interpretation of the word "scaling" is just different to what other users running full nodes understand it to be.  No amount of telling people to "research" (because we all know that's coming next) will make people think that "scaling" means what you think it means.  When there's consensus for a larger blockweight, it will happen.  Until then, try to recognise that lone users with fringe ideals are wholly impotent in a system that uses consensus.  And you are way out there on the fringes, buddy.

because you dont NEED to monitor the blockchain to send a payment on bitcoin if your just a single users the NEED for everyone to be a full node is less required, even to avoid third party services you do not NEED to run a full node

Oh marvellous, you've taken the time to survey everyone on Earth to find out exactly what they NEED, have you?  That's right, everyone, franky1 knows beyond all doubt that you don't need to run a full node.  It's all been decided for you.  He's not being a presumptuous fuckwit at all.  

Do you even read what you write before posting it?  Christ.

[Gary Levanevskii]

I think that Lighting Network will help improve Bitcoin's scalability and at the moment this is a real improvement, but in the future I think it will be necessary to come up with an improvement that will further increase Bitcoin's scalability.

[franky1]

Maybe try showing just a hint of optimism for the future?  Go with the flow and see how it turns out, perhaps?

there is TOO much optimism from you pink fluffy cloud unicorn snake oil sales men

some people want to know the negatives
i know you love the echo chamber of over promises and under commitments. but others dont.
have you even used LN yourself yet??

[franky1]

Not solely.  No one is claiming Bitcoin is the only blockchain that wants to take advantage of LN.  The very fact that more than one chain wants to implement it should clue you in to the fact that it's clearly desirable to have.  

calling it a "bitcoin scaling solution"
calling it a "bitcoin layer"

you your fluffy cloud crew trying to say its something only for bitcoin..

atleast be clear that its a separate network (emphases is clear in the N of LN)
be clear that LN's purpose is to take transaction utility away from the bitcoin blockchain.

and as for your other offtopic ramblings. yes you have many times on many topics rambled about how you prefer people to F**K off rather than mention/discuss things that are opposing to the roadmap.

[franky1]

That's a lie right there.  Didn't take you long.  No one is trying to limit scaling.  Your interpretation of the word "scaling" is just different to what other users running full nodes understand it to be.  No amount of telling people to "research" (because we all know that's coming next) will make people think that "scaling" means what you think it means.  

you have no clue
scaling ONCHAIN can happen in many ways.
      ... its you thats stuck in the echochamber that if people are not fluffy clouding LN then they must be big blockers
      ... i have mentions many different ways.
      ... pushing people off to another network is not scaling the network. its de-populating the network

get out of your echo chamber. the rhetoric of LN or bigblocks is not the only option. but your stuck in that mindset as your only argument/rebuttal. and yes do some research

When there's consensus for a larger blockweight, it will happen.  Until then, try to recognise that lone users with fringe ideals are wholly impotent in a system that uses consensus.  And you are way out there on the fringes, buddy.

like the 35% for segwit1x...... which would have just died.. but didnt because of the august 1st controversy
(again dont try denying it didnt happen even your kings admit it did, they even admit they instigated it)

i even said. if your kings went with segwit2x(segwit2mb variant) back in 2016 there would have been no controversy
i even said. if your kings went with segwit2x(NYA agreement) in 2017 there would have been no controversy

but nah. 35% was not good enough so (ADMITTED BY THE DEVS) august 1st did push it through and without people needing to upgrade as it was a 'mandatory inflight upgrade(your kings words) bilateral fork(your kings words) or as you prefer "compatible"
all meaning non consensus needed as no opt-in was required(no upgrade needed)

[Wind_FURY]

OK first of all you're doing some mass averaging here. Thats NOT the same thing as a median!

your using median.. thats so much fail on you
4,4,5,8,16
your median is 5
average is 7.4
so your under estimating.. (your pink fluffy clouding numbers)
EG
if there was only 5 seats on a bus and the bus had a 'bid for seat' system where by 10people offered
4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,8,16

these people will get to sit down
5,5,5,8,16
these wont
4,4,4,5,5
so if you looked at a median and seen so far median is 5 and you paid 5. you would have been at the back of the queue of the people that paid 5 so you as an 11th person would be part of the 4,4,4,5,5,5 lot that wont get a seat
where as by going for average 7.4 i would have jumped the queue your stuck in and i would have got a seat
5,5,7.4,8,16
leaving you and another 5 payer waiting for the next bus, HOPING to get on
4,4,4,5,5,5,5

then 10 further fresh people see the average is now 8.28
4,4,4,5,5,5,5 + 8,8,8,9,9,9,9,9,16,16,32,32
guess what
9,16,16,32,32
get on the bus... and your still waiting

franky1, if your data doesn't have any outliers, then by any means, use the average. But in reality, there are outliers. It does not always come out in the set of numbers that you posted.

4, 4, 5, 8, 500 can happen too. Would you say that the average of that would be right at the estimated middle?

[hv_]

Franky is (w)right

https://www.ccn.com/shots-fired-craig-wright-calls-bitcoin-evangelist-andreas-antonopoulos-shtcoin-expert/