One Trillion dollars marketcap: How does it escalate technical challenges?

[aliashraf]

Thank you friends @Karartma1 and @Heisenberg_Hunter  for very insightful comments, kudos 

I support @Kararma1 concerns about mining, solo mining to be exact, as being a very important security insurance we need NOW and his/her great reminder of the need for STRATEGY. Kudos again my friend.

I'm also strongly believe in @Heisenberg_Hunter's idea about how important it is to have more and more devs onboard and I appreciate his/her spirit and commitment.

@ETFbitcoin also deserves a lot of credit for the fair treatment of the issues discussed here and bringing up important topics at the same time.

I've to chew something discussed here a bit more and will be back very soon, hopefully, with some value to add.

[1715205145]

1715205145

[Wind_FURY]

Category 1: Structural shortcomings of the system being exposed to ever-increasing expectations. Bitcoin scaling problem is one important example here.

It’s why exchanges, merchants, and other services should be together in support in building, and development of the Lightning Network.

But we know LN doesn't solve all scaling problem and have few disadvantage such as,
1. Not useful for those who rarely make transaction.
2. To open and close channel, LN need to make 2 bitcoin transaction.

1. If you HODL, and rarely make a transaction, then what’s the problem?
2. I believe a trade off is necessary. For “non-power users”, just use a custodial wallet to do everything for you, and with the help of exchanges, it should be easy to load your wallet/open an incoming channel, and make LN transactions through them.

Category 2: Incentivized adversary behaviors being escalated because of stakes getting higher and higher. Regulatory intervention and censorship threats fit in this class.

Regulatory intervention, we already know, censorship threats, we can circumvent, what other adversary behaviors does Bitcoin have? Miner co-opting the protocol? I believe BIP148 showed they follow the economic majority.

And how about malicious behavior (which i mentioned) which still valid by Bitcoin protocol?

Is that about the mining pool located in the U.S. planning to censor transactions? Everyone should come to consensus to ban that node.

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

2. It's not about good UI/UX, but to make 2 on-chain transaction

We currently have a solution for this. But I think it will take a few months or years to happen in real time. Currently exchanges are working like Crypto Banks but in the last decade or so, bank to bank fiat transfers were not free of cost atleast this was the case in developing countries. Similarly Binance internal transfers are free of cost and instant since we aren't doing any on-chain transfers but Binance to Coinbase (for example) incur a mining fees. So if Lightning Network exist between 2 exchanges we could be making near to instant transfers and for free of cost. So here we achieve the scalability and relying too much on on-chain transfers are prevented but the only disadvantage of this scenario is that we rely on exchanges for private keys and the real purpose of decentralization is destroyed.

Every one of us will be having bank accounts and crypto exchange accounts but bank - bank transfers has achieved scalability because of a second layer protocol like VisaNet (powering Visa) or BankNet (powering MasterCard). These networks just relay information and doesn't really move the money from one place to another. Similarly LN can probably solve the scalability issue if each and every crypto exchange uses LN for the transfers! I think Liquid Sidechain seems to be solving the scalability in a similar manner by supporting some good number of exchanges but I didn't give a deep read on it.

[Wind_FURY]

But we know LN doesn't solve all scaling problem and have few disadvantage such as,
1. Not useful for those who rarely make transaction.
2. To open and close channel, LN need to make 2 bitcoin transaction.

1. If you HODL, and rarely make a transaction, then what’s the problem?
2. I believe a trade off is necessary. For “non-power users”, just use a custodial wallet to do everything for you, and with the help of exchanges, it should be easy to load your wallet/open an incoming channel, and make LN transactions through them.

1. Rarely makes transaction doesn't mean you only HODL, someone might buy goods (such as gift cards) on special occasion (such as birthday and national holiday).

I believe LN can decongest the base layer, and make fees cheap enough for all kinds of users.

2. It's not about good UI/UX, but fee to make 2 on-chain transaction which already mentioned by @Heisenberg_Hunter.

With the help of exchanges, and working together with Bitcoin custodial wallets, isn’t it possible for users to have their LN wallets sent with coins/incoming capacity opened to them?  

I admit, I don’t have all the answers, I offer only what’s in my stupid brain.

And how about malicious behavior (which i mentioned) which still valid by Bitcoin protocol?

Is that about the mining pool located in the U.S. planning to censor transactions? Everyone should come to consensus to ban that node.

Ban node which follow Bitcoin protocol? The pool could evade it easily (by run many full nodes which act as proxy) and it violate principle of Bitcoin (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Principles_of_Bitcoin).

One of the main Principles of Bitcoin is, “no censorship”. If a node censors transactions, what’s stopping me, and calling for the other full nodes, to stop listening to it for misbehaving?

[ABCbits]

1. Rarely makes transaction doesn't mean you only HODL, someone might buy goods (such as gift cards) on special occasion (such as birthday and national holiday).

I believe LN can decongest the base layer, and make fees cheap enough for all kinds of users.

I believe otherwise, even LN whitepaper (http://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf) on chapter 10 think,
1. On global scale scenario, 1MB block size definitely not enoug.
2. On scenario to support 35 million users, it uses very optimistic scenario where all users use LN and only make 3 on-chain transaction/year. In fact, most LN channel duration is only 2 weeks and not everyone will use LN.

2. It's not about good UI/UX, but fee to make 2 on-chain transaction which already mentioned by @Heisenberg_Hunter.

With the help of exchanges, and working together with Bitcoin custodial wallets, isn’t it possible for users to have their LN wallets sent with coins/incoming capacity opened to them? 

I admit, I don’t have all the answers, I offer only what’s in my stupid brain.

My point is someone has to pay the fee for 2 on-chain transaction which used to open and close the channel.

Ban node which follow Bitcoin protocol? The pool could evade it easily (by run many full nodes which act as proxy) and it violate principle of Bitcoin (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Principles_of_Bitcoin).

One of the main Principles of Bitcoin is, “no censorship”. If a node censors transactions, what’s stopping me, and calling for the other full nodes, to stop listening to it for misbehaving?

By "a node censor transaction", how would node do it? I doubt refusing to broadcast or accept specific transaction categorized as misbehavior (CMIIW).

[Wind_FURY]

1. Rarely makes transaction doesn't mean you only HODL, someone might buy goods (such as gift cards) on special occasion (such as birthday and national holiday).

I believe LN can decongest the base layer, and make fees cheap enough for all kinds of users.

I believe otherwise, even LN whitepaper (http://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf) on chapter 10 think,
1. On global scale scenario, 1MB block size definitely not enoug.
2. On scenario to support 35 million users, it uses very optimistic scenario where all users use LN and only make 3 on-chain transaction/year. In fact, most LN channel duration is only 2 weeks and not everyone will use LN.

2. It's not about good UI/UX, but fee to make 2 on-chain transaction which already mentioned by @Heisenberg_Hunter.

With the help of exchanges, and working together with Bitcoin custodial wallets, isn’t it possible for users to have their LN wallets sent with coins/incoming capacity opened to them?  

I admit, I don’t have all the answers, I offer only what’s in my stupid brain.

My point is someone has to pay the fee for 2 on-chain transaction which used to open and close the channel.

I admit, I don’t have all the answers, but from my understanding, increasing transaction throughput without sacrificing decentralization can only be done through the implementation of LN, or something like it.

Plus is it always necessary to open, and close a channel everytime? I doesn’t have to be if LN is to become an actual network for off-chain payments, right?

Ban node which follow Bitcoin protocol? The pool could evade it easily (by run many full nodes which act as proxy) and it violate principle of Bitcoin (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Principles_of_Bitcoin).

One of the main Principles of Bitcoin is, “no censorship”. If a node censors transactions, what’s stopping me, and calling for the other full nodes, to stop listening to it for misbehaving?

By "a node censor transaction", how would node do it?

I don’t know how, but there was someone who posted a link about a new mining pool that proposes to censor all transactions that weren’t compliant, and censor transactions from a sanctioned address. Doesn’t that go against the Bitcoin Principle?

I doubt refusing to broadcast or accept specific transaction categorized as misbehavior (CMIIW).

OK, I respect that.

[Wind_FURY]

I admit, I don’t have all the answers, but from my understanding, increasing transaction throughput without sacrificing decentralization can only be done through the implementation of LN, or something like it.

Besides LN, there are few minor on-chain improvement (such as Schnorr signature and Taproot) which doesn't sacrifice decentralization. But my point is LN alone won't be enough for global adaption.

I never said LN would be enough for global adoption, but I know we can agree that it will increase functionality for Bitcoin.

Plus is it always necessary to open, and close a channel everytime? I doesn’t have to be if LN is to become an actual network for off-chain payments, right?

That depends on the condition (such as no routing path found or insufficient balance), but i except frequency of open/close channel will be less frequent if more people use LN.

I believe the main idea of LN is to have minimal opening-closing of channels, and be a permanent network on top of the base layer. Aren’t there technologies being developed for this?

By "a node censor transaction", how would node do it?

I don’t know how, but there was someone who posted a link about a new mining pool that proposes to censor all transactions that weren’t compliant, and censor transactions from a sanctioned address. Doesn’t that go against the Bitcoin Principle?

The link is about miner censor transaction by excluding specific transaction. While it's against Bitcoin principle, it doesn't violate Bitcoin Principle, after all miner could mine empty block.

It’s actually a mining pool, which is a node in the network, and miners only point to mining pools.