Lightning Network - Thoughts?

[Flux0z]

What are you guys thoughts on the Lightning Network? There's been MASSIVE debate on this since it's very invention, and I understand that the fundamentals for running BTC Lightning channels is very bad, since it's income potential is very limited, due to the extremely low fee's.

However, after some digging, found that Stakenet is developing a DEX built around the Lightning Network, with masternodes implementing these nodes (these masternodes is already in profit due to block rewards coming in, so a Lightning node is just an "extra" income on top of it).

This is pretty genius thinking, since nobody needs to be tech savy while using it, as it's eco-system (masternodes) will handle everything in the background.

Bitfinex has recently introduced Lightning Network support as well, so adopting is slowly, but surely coming for this.

What do you guys think?

[1714100381]

1714100381

[1714100381]

1714100381

[1714100381]

1714100381

[1714100381]

1714100381

[1714100381]

1714100381

[1714100381]

1714100381

[nightflightcourt]

I don't see how Lightning will take off beyond a hobbyist phase without massively centralized interests getting involved.
Stakenet's solution is notable for embedding LN nodes into masternodes so the LN nodes have access to all the collateral locked in the MNs (quasi-centralized liquidity pool within a purely decentralized network). The nodes will be running 24/7 in the background atop all that liquidity to rout payments and should take very little maintenance to keep up.

It could very well solve multiple problems in the industry by meshing the gears of many underutilized together.
Lightning? Lack of liquidity. Not profitable enough at the individual level.
Staking? Inflationary. Sometimes to an extreme. Underutilized use-case outside of securing the integrity of the network.
DEXs? Low liquidity, low volume, paper-thin orderbooks, AND difficult to access for 99.9x% of the world.
Atomic swaps? A big win for DEXs but still potentially very slow depending on which coins are being swapped.
Masternodes? Like so many staking coins, what do they do other than secure the integrity of the network and inflate the circulating supply?

Using Masternodes and the collateral locked within them to power Lightning Atomic Swaps which serve as the infrastructure for what could very well become the speediest and most liquid DEX in the industry and using a conservative inflationary supply to gradually produce more masternodes which, in a way, provide an opening to expand the exchange with additional servers so it doesn't hit a bottleneck. It's both genius and shocking that no one in crypto seems to even know that it exists.

[Marckolind]

Guess I need to do some research on Lightning, as this post above is pretty damn interesting.

I've seen a lot of hate on Lightning as of lately, but this seems like a cool implementation idea. Thanks for posting.

[TravelMug]

Guess I need to do some research on Lightning, as this post above is pretty damn interesting.

I've seen a lot of hate on Lightning as of lately, but this seems like a cool implementation idea. Thanks for posting.

Who is hating Lightning Network? when we can save a lot of transaction fees although it has some limitations. But it could really help in a way, specially if we go on another parabolic run choking the network.

So if you wanted to pay someone, you can take advantage of LN, open a channel so that the other party can issue the payment without adding congestion to the network, p2p, off-chain transaction.

[Marckolind]

Guess I need to do some research on Lightning, as this post above is pretty damn interesting.

I've seen a lot of hate on Lightning as of lately, but this seems like a cool implementation idea. Thanks for posting.

Who is hating Lightning Network? when we can save a lot of transaction fees although it has some limitations. But it could really help in a way, specially if we go on another parabolic run choking the network.

So if you wanted to pay someone, you can take advantage of LN, open a channel so that the other party can issue the payment without adding congestion to the network, p2p, off-chain transaction.

There's been a lot of hate and criticism around it's security on Reddit. This is another setup though, masternodes will handle everything, so the actual users wont need to have any technical knowledge on Lightning in order to trade, let alone send/recieve coins over the Lightning Network

[brightemo]

Bitfinex has recently introduced Lightning Network support as well, so adopting is slowly, but surely coming for this.

They also finally implement credit card support. In my opinion, every big exchange should support LN and cards

[nightflightcourt]

Guess I need to do some research on Lightning, as this post above is pretty damn interesting.

I've seen a lot of hate on Lightning as of lately, but this seems like a cool implementation idea. Thanks for posting.

The hardest challenge in Bitcoin's case is maintaining a consistently reliable infrastructure at the 2nd level. By embedding LN nodes into a scalable masternode network that already runs 24/7, we can establish a permanent base of stable, constantly open and active channels to process transactions.

Bitcoin needs a solution like this to scale beyond it's on-chain tx bottleneck effectively. The amount of on-chain transactions available at any given time needs to be as thoroughly optimized as it can be to make the most constructive use of the network at any given point, and I believe it's best to reserve as much of that tx/time bandwidth for transactions involving larger sums of money that need the additional protections granted by on-chain (traceability, never lose funds in a channel by mistake).

It’s inherently awful for sending small sums of money. Buying a concert/sports ticket at the gate, paying the check at a restaurant, waiting for the payment to process when you're buying a beer or in the front of a long line at the grocery store? From multiple wallets if you and a friend want to grab coffees? On-chain is way too slow to compete with cash or traditional ecommerce for everyday use.

It would be best to treat on-chain Bitcoin tx in a finite and priority-based manner like IPv4 addresses are in a network: finite, high priority, highly-organized, and in high-demand.

Lightning, alternatively, compliments Bitcoin in the same way that subnets compliment IPv4. Each and every one of those addresses in the IPv4 range are critical for expanding the internet and subnets allow for many more nodes and devices to participate on the network without crowding it. There are only so many plots of land in Hong Kong or Manhattan, but great density is achieved by building up. The internet is built up in a similar way. The IPv4 internet would have maxed out long ago and it would have been severely stunted.

For Lightning to do it's job in this way, it needs to be integrated with Bitcoin in a way that is economically feasible. The idea that near-zero fees are a threat to mining profitability and network security is very real. Routing near-zero fees on any small-scale level is barely profitable so liquidity is low and centralization looms.

Stakenet’s network appears to be the most cohesive answer to this problem. Stable, centralized liquidity pool from a purely decentralized engine.

[Flux0z]

Guess I need to do some research on Lightning, as this post above is pretty damn interesting.

I've seen a lot of hate on Lightning as of lately, but this seems like a cool implementation idea. Thanks for posting.

The hardest challenge in Bitcoin's case is maintaining a consistently reliable infrastructure at the 2nd level. By embedding LN nodes into a scalable masternode network that already runs 24/7, we can establish a permanent base of stable, constantly open and active channels to process transactions.

Bitcoin needs a solution like this to scale beyond it's on-chain tx bottleneck effectively. The amount of on-chain transactions available at any given time needs to be as thoroughly optimized as it can be to make the most constructive use of the network at any given point, and I believe it's best to reserve as much of that tx/time bandwidth for transactions involving larger sums of money that need the additional protections granted by on-chain (traceability, never lose funds in a channel by mistake).

It’s inherently awful for sending small sums of money. Buying a concert/sports ticket at the gate, paying the check at a restaurant, waiting for the payment to process when you're buying a beer or in the front of a long line at the grocery store? From multiple wallets if you and a friend want to grab coffees? On-chain is way too slow to compete with cash or traditional ecommerce for everyday use.

It would be best to treat on-chain Bitcoin tx in a finite and priority-based manner like IPv4 addresses are in a network: finite, high priority, highly-organized, and in high-demand.

Lightning, alternatively, compliments Bitcoin in the same way that subnets compliment IPv4. Each and every one of those addresses in the IPv4 range are critical for expanding the internet and subnets allow for many more nodes and devices to participate on the network without crowding it. There are only so many plots of land in Hong Kong or Manhattan, but great density is achieved by building up. The internet is built up in a similar way. The IPv4 internet would have maxed out long ago and it would have been severely stunted.

For Lightning to do it's job in this way, it needs to be integrated with Bitcoin in a way that is economically feasible. The idea that near-zero fees are a threat to mining profitability and network security is very real. Routing near-zero fees on any small-scale level is barely profitable so liquidity is low and centralization looms.

Stakenet’s network appears to be the most cohesive answer to this problem. Stable, centralized liquidity pool from a purely decentralized engine.

Great explanation.
I'm sure a lot of people don't understand most of it, but in a nutshell:

There's NO incentive to run Lighning nodes on BTC alone from a financial aspect due to the low fees you'll earn
On top of Stakenet's masternodes (which is already running in profit) a Lightning Node with it's small income will be an "added" income stream on top of block rewards, which makes this whole setup unique and interesting.

Thanks for posting!

[nightflightcourt]

Great explanation.
I'm sure a lot of people don't understand most of it, but in a nutshell:

There's NO incentive to run Lighning nodes on BTC alone from a financial aspect due to the low fees you'll earn
On top of Stakenet's masternodes (which is already running in profit) a Lightning Node with it's small income will be an "added" income stream on top of block rewards, which makes this whole setup unique and interesting.

Thanks for posting!

It all flows like liquid
All that money locked in Stakenet masternodes is like a deep water reserve. Most LN nodes pump from shallow puddles and lakes. Have them pump directly from the deep reserve and there's enough liquidity for the whole town to have drinking water. 

[dioanna]

I also have a little knowledge about Lightning network but while doing some searching.
It seems, It has a lot of detractors than supporters, Because it is more of a centralized network.

This is the article I have read which I think has it in detailed content.
https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

[nightflightcourt]

I also have a little knowledge about Lightning network but while doing some searching.
It seems, It has a lot of detractors than supporters, Because it is more of a centralized network.

This is the article I have read which I think has it in detailed content.
https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

Having multiple people manually take up the responsibility of routing in that manner would be absurd and, indeed, unfeasible as expressed by the author. That article is almost 3 years old. To it's credit, many of those fundamental flaws have shown themselves. Lightning was not implemented well.

Stakenet actually built a decentralized and automated solution that fixes the routing problem so no one has to do it themselves. Since each masternode in their network is worth so much in collateral, and that collateral can be used for liquidity, people can enjoy the speed and low fees of LN channel Bitcoin without having to run and maintain their own nodes at home. It effectively makes it much more akin to using a normal BTC wallet. MNs are located all over the world but they run in harmony and their liquidity is one. Due to that contradiction, I use the term "quasi-centralized" to describe XSN's LN liquidity pool.

If a giant, centralized "mega-router" came to be and it had this massive influence over the network, Stakenet is the only thing that can compete with it. Unlike a giant, centralized mega-router, Stakenet's tx, channels, and collateral are purely decentralized and tamper-proof. This is important!

If a centralized exchange wallet is a poorly built house, a centralized exchange Lightning wallet is a poorly built house with 2 floors. There are so many more complications that could be had. Fortunately, Stakenet's framework is one where you are in complete control of your money from deposit to withdraw. Since it's a DEX, it means unlimited trading pairs and no exit scams. Since it's on Lightning, it has speed and liquidity. Since it uses MNs, it makes Lightning usable.  You could call it ~ the much-feared reverse food-chain of XSN

[Marckolind]

I also have a little knowledge about Lightning network but while doing some searching.
It seems, It has a lot of detractors than supporters, Because it is more of a centralized network.

This is the article I have read which I think has it in detailed content.
https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

From my research, Stakenet makes the Lightning Network decentralized, since the Lightning Nodes will be hosted on decentralized masternodes. So it's apparentely a different thing compared to Lightning directly on top of BTC, which could very well become centralized

[Febo]

It seems, It has a lot of detractors than supporters, Because it is more of a centralized network.

Lightning is not a main protocol layer. So you dont need totally decentralisation as you need there. You dont even need to use lightning at all. And everyone that will move big sums of BTC will avoid Lightning and use main Bitcoin layer.

[nightflightcourt]

If you want Bitcoin to scale infinitely, Lightning needs to be firing on all cylinders.

[ned.ryerson]

I believe that the Lightning Network is a breakthrough in the development of Bitcoin and its network. the most important thing is to make the Lightning network easier to use. so that people can safely create nodes. Now it is very difficult for ordinary people to use.

[nightflightcourt]

I believe that the Lightning Network is a breakthrough in the development of Bitcoin and its network. the most important thing is to make the Lightning network easier to use. so that people can safely create nodes. Now it is very difficult for ordinary people to use.

You'd probably like what XSN has been building on Lightning. I described what it's doing in detail above.
The end result will make LN as easy as:
1.) Downloading the wallet
2.) Securing it
3.) Sending crypto to it
And that's all the end-user has to worry about. No routing or liquidity concerns.

[disconnectme]

I have a feeling it is politics that is making the adoption of Lighting Network to lag behind. Seriously why are exchanges have to lose, most of these exchanges have been hacked several times and LN has we see it is a big bounty for hackers and 3 yrs running still doing fine, just hope things will get better

[nightflightcourt]

I have a feeling it is politics that is making the adoption of Lighting Network to lag behind. Seriously why are exchanges have to lose, most of these exchanges have been hacked several times and LN has we see it is a big bounty for hackers and 3 yrs running still doing fine, just hope things will get better

CEXs are all about money. Whenever they pretend to care about anything, they were usually bribed into it.

[jostorres]

I guess it could work if enough people join to it and agree to it, that is how blockchain stuff happens, you have to have people all join in and agree with something before it can be reality, if people do not like the idea they just not care about it.

Look at nano, it was created as so fast that when you send from one google chrome tab to another, the money will go faster than you can switch the tab, we are talking about less than a second transactions, people looked like they cared but now it is less than fifty cents so obviously people do not care about cheap or free and very fast transactions as much as they care about money itself. As long as proof of work stays and people want to make money from it, they will try to keep it that way as long as possible

[nightflightcourt]

I guess it could work if enough people join to it and agree to it, that is how blockchain stuff happens, you have to have people all join in and agree with something before it can be reality, if people do not like the idea they just not care about it.

Look at nano, it was created as so fast that when you send from one google chrome tab to another, the money will go faster than you can switch the tab, we are talking about less than a second transactions, people looked like they cared but now it is less than fifty cents so obviously people do not care about cheap or free and very fast transactions as much as they care about money itself. As long as proof of work stays and people want to make money from it, they will try to keep it that way as long as possible

I think both Stakenet and NANO have bright futures. It's not fair to say no one cares about NANO.
I remember when it was still XRB and it was pretty obscure.
Almost 3 years later and it's still in the top 70 and way above it's old prices.