Lightning Network Observer

[n0nce]

imagine "users" are 5 "routers" hops from other "users"
where the routers are not holding value for their own spending. but just facilitating payments for users

A \                          / N
B --  G                L -- O
C /      \            /     \ P
            I - J - K
D \      /           \      / Q
E --  H               M --  R
F /                          \ S
[...]
LN will never be the main payment network of bitcoin where bitcoin is the "reserve lock" network of dead data

You go from a constructed example of a very badly connected network to 'the whole concept does not work'.
In reality, there are links e.g. from A to L, from Q to I, from H to L and whatnot. There are some visual representations of the actual Lightning Network, such as:
https://1ml.com/visual/network

Today, we are announcing that the Lightning node, Lndhub.io, where BlueWallet provides Lightning wallets to its users, is sunsetting. While you can still withdraw your sats, creating new or refilling existing Lightning wallets on LndHub node will no longer be possible.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/bluewallet-to-sunset-custodial-lightning-wallet-service


https://twitter.com/BitcoinNewsCom/status/1628832894385790978

Nice to see! People hopefully switching away from custodial LN providers, over to self-hosted Lightning installs..

[franky1]

imagine "users" are 5 "routers" hops from other "users"
where the routers are not holding value for their own spending. but just facilitating payments for users

A \                          / N
B --  G                L -- O
C /      \            /     \ P
            I - J - K
D \      /           \      / Q
E --  H               M --  R
F /                          \ S
[...]
LN will never be the main payment network of bitcoin where bitcoin is the "reserve lock" network of dead data

You go from a constructed example of a very badly connected network to 'the whole concept does not work'.
In reality, there are links e.g. from A to L, from Q to I, from H to L and whatnot. There are some visual representations of the actual Lightning Network, such as:
https://1ml.com/visual/network

its funny how on such a small network you are already claiming that users need more then one channel.. but yea thanks for revealing one flaw

so yea the more users on the network the more channels users need
which means users are then having to split their $500 over 3-4 channels.
(upto 9 average)

meaning a user, just to make payments, need to then on average deposit upto $4.5 into their node wallet and split it into averages of $500 per channel
because if they all just split just $500 into upto 9 channels means $55 each. which would cause more bottlenecks of people trying to find routes of $500

run more scenarios
EG if A linked to L then L would need more
EG lets say in your A to L
if B wanted to pay O
via B-G-A-L-O
A would need more then $500 for its own payments and also many multiples for payments G is sending A to get to L bypassing IJK
other wise there would be payment failures

atleast run some scenarios of a network thats not "hubbed"(custodial) of high capacity. and instead lots of smaller self-custody nodes

you can easily do this by drawing it out in an imagine and running math on excel. at no cost.
so go try it

new users in the real world dont like to spend hours reviewing network visuals to find out which is the best existing-user to link to that is only 5 hops away from all of new users favourite services/merchants

they dont want to have to plan out 6 months of spending habits to then total up how much they need to set per channel

they prefer to just lock up their coin and get on with spending it.

so please just run some real life scenarios of real life expectations. not the utopian dreams that ignore real world experience
ok here is a little game theory experiment for you
there are 12 people each with ~$850 coin ownership. whereby in the next 3 months of locking up that coin. they expect to be able to(without pre planning) want to spend upto $500 with a yet decided recipient of one of the 11 others

now try to design the perfect utopian dream network layout of just 12 users wanting that ambition.
ill let you work out the channel count vs hop count. you decide if the network should be multiple channels or multiple hops to allow access. where by you then decide if the routers inbetween or hubs inbetween have X more balance just to facilitate payments for the 12 users.

but each user needs to be able to show a route where they can send upto $500 of a $850 total node balance to any other of the 11 recipients without issue

[n0nce]

imagine "users" are 5 "routers" hops from other "users"
where the routers are not holding value for their own spending. but just facilitating payments for users

A \                          / N
B --  G                L -- O
C /      \            /     \ P
            I - J - K
D \      /           \      / Q
E --  H               M --  R
F /                          \ S
[...]
LN will never be the main payment network of bitcoin where bitcoin is the "reserve lock" network of dead data

You go from a constructed example of a very badly connected network to 'the whole concept does not work'.
In reality, there are links e.g. from A to L, from Q to I, from H to L and whatnot. There are some visual representations of the actual Lightning Network, such as:
https://1ml.com/visual/network

its funny how on such a small network you are already claiming that users need more then one channel.. but yea thanks for revealing one flaw

so yea the more users on the network the more channels users need
which means users are then having to split their $500 over 3-4 channels.
(upto 9 average)

meaning a user, just to make payments, need to then on average deposit upto $4.5 into their node wallet and split it into averages of $500 per channel
because if they all just split just $500 into upto 9 channels means $55 each. which would cause more bottlenecks of people trying to find routes of $500

Yeah, it's true that you do need to fund channels worth quite a lot more than the amounts you'll eventually typically spend / receive, if you want a very high chance of payments reaching their destination. And it's also true that you do need a handful of channels, unless you connect to centralized 'hubs'.
I won't deny these facts. But I don't think they are too bad. I mean, the money is still under your control, you still hold they keys, if you need it on-chain you can just close the channels and pay regular on-chain transaction fees once. You can even batch close channels in one single (albeit larger) transaction.

And never forget that if you split $500 in 9 channels, it doesn't mean your maximum payment size will be $55. Payments are split into different sized pieces and travel through different routes, depending on the liquidity available on each route.

[franky1]

you forget. that if everyone had an average of $900 node
and 9 channels of $100

there is then the "pass the parcel" game of liquidity

EG if someone was to spend $500 via using 5 routes. it then unbalances all the people on the routes of them 5 routes

like i said try and run some scenarios either drawn out or using excel.. try to design the most utopian network you can think of then run it through some scenarios that are less than best case utopian dream..*

you will find when those 5 first hops try to rebalance back their one route it then unbalances someone else. and so on. and they try to rebalance back theirs which brings back the first hop out of balance

in the end most people are not making actual payments. they are just rebalancing balances when each other is rebalancing theirs. like a tug of war

*most people using LN only wish to do best case scenarios because they fear losing value if they tested anything else but utopia. so take a step back. and run scenarios that are less then utopia on your utopian drawn network. because doing it on paper/drawing/excel has no real world risk/cost. but gives you freedom to think outside of the best case dream

[BlackHatCoiner]

its funny how on such a small network you are already claiming that users need more then one channel.. but yea thanks for revealing one flaw

It's funny how you think we don't recognize any flaws, and you're the gatekeeper of truth who screws us every time we talk about it. Lightning network has flaws. Granted. Lots of them actually. Routing failures, backups, uptime related, security, little development (in comparison with Bitcoin), but over all it's a decent solution. You still have custody, you have better levels of privacy, transactions happen immediately, and transfers don't take up to a dollar when shit like Ordinals come up.

[franky1]

but you lot promote it as a utopian solution

oh and by the way
if you have full control of your value on utxo then the 'recipient' (channel partner) owns none of the value promised until broadcast
so we circle back to the promissory note/iou thing again

its not that im the arbitor of truth its that you lot over promise stuff but fail to commit.. in all sense of the words
you want people to remain stuck in the net work for months/years. while only having 100% success for coffee purchases..

yet to any one not yet using lightning. you will tell them anything to get them to lock value up. by saying how bitcoin is broke and lightning is the only solution..

shameful tactics

as for privacy..  dang you have not even been truthful about the "gossip"
and no transactions are not instant. there are many causes for payment to be delayed, fail or take time to reroute, liquidity bottleneck, have partner asleep, no route at all, or all the other flaws..
oh wait you yet again didnt mention the flaws you instead went right back to pretending its a instant cheap solution with the empty promises of the echos of a snake oil salesman pitch yet again

[BlackHatCoiner]

but you lot promote it as a utopian solution

I apologize if I've ever said that. I may have had. I don't believe it's the ultimate solution to scaling. I just think it does help a lot for those in capable of using it properly.

so we circle back to the promissory note/iou thing again

For the thousandth time, it is not a promise. Lightning transactions don't require faith to work. If the partner cheats, I'm not screwed by his dishonesty. I'm not relying on his honesty in the first place. I'm relying on his signature, which I've verified it's valid. Stop calling it a promissory note as if it's like in real life.

yet to any one not yet using lightning. you will tell them anything to get them to lock value up. by saying how bitcoin is broke and lightning is the only solution..

I'm not in favor of that, you've understood wrong. I'm in favor of bigger blocks as well, but not as much as I'm in favor of backwards compatibility. Do your research, as you love that, and figure out how every single field in IT is successful due to it being backwards compatible. OSes, gaming, web development, mobile devices, Internet (e.g., TCP/IP, email) etc., the list is endless. I'm also not as much in favor of big blocks as you are, because they don't solve scaling either.

[franky1]

so we circle back to the promissory note/iou thing again

For the thousandth time, it is not a promise. Lightning transactions don't require faith to work. If the partner cheats, I'm not screwed by his dishonesty. I'm not relying on his honesty in the first place. I'm relying on his signature, which I've verified it's valid. Stop calling it a promissory note as if it's like in real life.

its a unconfirmed transaction. which can change/replaced/overwritted/rejected/revoked.. have you observed all of features that make people not want to trust zero confirm payments
you having a "state" signed.. is not a guarantee you will get paid. thus its only a promise until its confirmed into a block
learn about confirmations and immutable blocks.

lightning zero confirm states are not settled. thus they are just IOU's
learn what an iou/promissory note is
its a promise to settle later

oh and there are MANY ways to scam funds out of peoples channel balance..
maybe if you stopped only observing the utopian best cases you will notice the risk exposure

I'm also not as much in favor of big blocks as you are, because they don't solve scaling either.

your forum wife doomad has been telling you crap. he wants to tell you those that do not like the flaws of lightning and the delays core devs have done to not scale transactions onchain  must (in doomads narrative) want massive blocks instantly

stop listening to that scammy creep of greed. break away from being his echo chamber forum-wife. its not helping you. when you sound like him is when i call you the idiot the most. learn why

there are many things that can be done that are not just what doomad tells you
there is ways to make transactions leaner. there are fee mechanisms that punish those trying to spend every block to reduce spammers/bloaters without punishing everyone (yep without making everyone "have to pay more"
and tx count scaling is not the same as doomads narrative of leaping/fee wars

his narrative of thinking that those that want onchain scaling. is his debunked narrative where he thinks it means jumping to 100mb blocks within a year

and you presuming that i idolise "bigger blocks more than.. " shows you are not thinking. you are just echoing idiotic narratives from him

[BlackHatCoiner]

its a unconfirmed transaction.

It's not just an unconfirmed transaction. It's an unconfirmed, signed transaction that if channel state changes, it becomes revoked, and ready to be invalidated the moment that becomes published. So it's basically confirmed unofficially.

his narrative of thinking that those that want onchain scaling. is his debunked narrative where he thinks it means jumping to 100mb blocks within a year

I'm pretty fine with the narrative of being civil, in favor of freedom to code, choose, and backwards compatibility. Thanks.

[franky1]

its a unconfirmed transaction.

It's not just an unconfirmed transaction. It's an unconfirmed, signed transaction that if channel state changes, it becomes revoked, and ready to be invalidated the moment that becomes published. So it's basically confirmed unofficially.

a transaction is a transaction when signed but that does not mean its complete/final. it just means it fits the format and specifics of being a transaction.
its basic contract law and common sense of thousands of years

confirmations is about being settled/immutable/finalised

you just admitted that states change and can be revoked and be invalidated.. thus not confirmed unofficially or officially
and not actually finalised. thus its still in the promise state. the owing state wher terms and promised can be broken, changed..

..until its confirmed and immutable (aka settled) on the blockchain

i know you have been learning crap from your forum-wife. but do try for once to learn about things like consensus, signatures contracts, confirmations immutability oh and learn not all transactions end up in blocks (that last one is a big thing that your forum-wife does not understand)

oh and there are MANY ways to scam people on lightning and make them lose value and also receive faked value thats not even pegged to a locked utxo

[cygan]

Xapo Bank becomes first bank in the world to integrate the Bitcoin  lightning network

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/03/02/xapo-bank-integrates-bitcoins-lightning-network-partners-with-lightspark/
https://cointelegraph.com/news/xapo-bank-enables-faster-bitcoin-payments-with-lightning-network
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/xapo-bank-partners-with-lightspark-becoming-the-first-fully-licensed-private-bank-to-offer-near-instant-bitcoin-payments-through-lightning-network-integration-301760777.html
https://thebittimes.com/xapo-bank-enables-faster-bitcoin-payments-with-lightning-network-tbt39809.html
https://www.xapobank.com/blog/another-first-xapo-bank-now-supports-lightning-network-payments

[BlackHatCoiner]

a transaction is a transaction when signed but that does not mean its complete/final. it just means it fits the format and specifics of being a transaction.

I never argued that a signed transaction is completed.

confirmations is about being settled/immutable/finalised

I never argued the opposite.

you just admitted that states change and can be revoked and be invalidated.. thus not confirmed unofficially or officially

I argued that states prior the latest are revoked, the last one is what we're currently acknowledging as valid. States cannot be revoked unless both parties consent. Therefore, a lightning user can't have his state revoked without his consent; only if he wants to make another transaction.

and not actually finalised. thus its still in the promise state. the owing state wher terms and promised can be broken, changed..

It's not a promise state if you're not dependent to a promise. The other partner can go offline, cheat, leave, whatever, but I will have everything needed to punish him with penalty. I'm not dependent to him, and therefore to any promise. It's completely trustless.

[franky1]

a transaction is a transaction when signed but that does not mean its complete/final. it just means it fits the format and specifics of being a transaction.

I never argued that a signed transaction is completed.

confirmations is about being settled/immutable/finalised

I never argued the opposite.

your memory must be the shortest memory i have seen yet
you wrote in this topic that you never argued X
just 14 minutes after you actually said that lightning is confirmed

When you send funds via lightning, and the payment is confirmed by both parties, the transaction is settled, done. Money are sent. New balances are set. Whoever disagrees with this, and tries publishing a non-latest state is punished financially.

that topic was talking about lightning payments.

see what i mean you say that lighting is confirmed. and then pretend in this topic that you never said that lightning payments are confirmed..

how can you be so manipulative to say such obvious contradictory things in such a short time. but then pretend you dont contradict what you are saying

even if its just in signed unbroadcast state within lightning and not yet sent to the bitcoin network for confirm. you pretend its still confirmed without the actual confirm

..
reality is lightning payments are not confirmed/settled/final
they are just iou promised.. because they are yet to be complete/confirmed/settled

[BlackHatCoiner]

your memory must be the shortest memory i have seen yet

I can confidently say the same about your brain. I have never argued that a lightning transaction is reversible. What I previously said is in favor of my point, which is: lightning transactions aren't faith-based.

see what i mean you say that lighting is confirmed. and then pretend in this topic that you never said that lightning payments are confirmed..

They are not confirmed in the traditional, on-chain manner, but they're settled, and so, confirmed. They're just not confirmed on the base layer. They will be at some point in the future, after both parties consent to close the channel.

even if its just in signed unbroadcast state

Stop calling it "just signed". The users don't "just sign" transactions in the traditional manner. They sign that if one of them cheats, the other can punish him. That isn't "just sign". It's more than that.

[franky1]

they are not settled. because the destinations of value can be revoked, changed, reassigned.(re-instated(new states)) they are not settled because they are not on the immutable ledger

imagine you had btc balance in a utxo. which you lock to use in lightning
lightning still sees you have collateral.
but whomever you pay in LN has no record in bitcoin of them receiving that value.
thus at this point you still own all the collateral.
value signed to someone else is not confirmed as being that someone elses because its not confirmed..
much like never trusting CEX exchanges, because if the value is not on your key in a confirmed utxo its not your value
(#NotYourKEYNotYourBTC)

understand why cypherpunks for decades were running into the same problems for their digital money idea's until bitcoins blockchain idea come to be

understand the things blockchains solved in 2009.
the idea of LN is not new and above blockchains. its actually old and predates blockchains.
yep "smart contracts" are old tech

they are not finalised settled. they are just (weak)promises of future (alterable)settlements. but where there are still flaws which can break them promises. thus they are not even good promises.

learn what bitcoin is and what lightning is and how they are different. and what works and doesnt work

you have been fooled or trained to think lightning is better then bitcoin. its not

[DooMAD]

you have been fooled or trained to think lightning is better then bitcoin. its not

Stop with the false equivalences already.  

"different to" ≠ "better than"

No one is saying LN is "better" than Bitcoin.  That's merely what you erroneously infer with your broken brain every time you hear someone utter the word "Lightning".  

Normal people have normal conversations about LN.  And then you suddenly barge in screeching "eVeRyOnE iS sAyInG liGhTnInG iS bEtTaR tHaN bItCoIn!!!!111one" when that couldn't be further from the truth.  Please train your brain to be less psycho.  It would be greatly appreciated.



//EDIT:

YOU guys have been saying it

Then you'll have no trouble quoting it verbatim, then.  Go right ahead.  I'll wait.  You find the quote and show it to us.  

For anyone else reading this, notice how when I call franky1 a fascist, I can provide quotes of times when he has spouted authoritarian shite about how devs shouldn't be allowed to code things that franky1 doesn't approve of.  Yet when he claims I've said something, he refuses to provide a quote.  I have never stated that Lightning is better than Bitcoin.  Therefore franky1 will be unable to provide a quote to back up his spurious claims.  It's clear that franky1 will just keep lying and continue to be the most dishonest piece of shit on this entire forum.

[franky1]

YOU guys have been saying it

you guys have been saying that lightning "is" bitcoin thus not different
you guys have been saying that bitcoin cant do XYZ and people should use lightning instead

promoting LN as the "solution" the best way forward compared to onchain scaling and all your other blurb trying to promote lightning as the best case scenario to move forward and where bitcoins on scaling wont work and such

the crap of you lot saying lightning is ontop.. and hating when i call lightning a SUB network
how you lot want people to think of lightning as a bitcoin 2.0. when reality is that lightning is not even a bitcoin network. but a subnetwork bridge for multiple currencies
(even poon called it a cross-border network for multiple currencies)

i know you now want to pretend you lot never said the snake oil sales pitches. but your post histories show more about the blurb you have said previously, compared to what you are trying now to say that you didnt say


even today doomads forum-husband said "no one said LN payments are complete and confirmed"
i then reminded him of 14 minutes before that where he said ln payments were confirmed.
then as soon as he remembered. he then went on to say that he thinks LN payments are confirmed.

forgetting that in this topic he was trying to say that he never said that ln payments were confirmed, before just now saying ln payments are confirmed

in short doomad and blackhatcoiner cant even remember what they are trying to say and change their narrative and then deny having a narrative.

[cygan]

Flow 2.0 is a noncustodial Liquidity Service Provider that is made to automate liquidity needs by providing Just In Time channel creation. This means that our LSP will be able to detect a payment going to your Lightning node and make liquidity decisions to ensure the payment makes it to you. This solves a lot of headaches for node runners, merchants, and developers that are tasked constantly with managing their liquidity.

https://docs.voltage.cloud/flow/flow-2.0
Demo of Flow 2.0, the new Voltage LSP

[franky1]

Flow 2.0 is a noncustodial Liquidity Service Provider that is made to automate liquidity needs by providing Just In Time channel creation. This means that our LSP will be able to detect a payment going to your Lightning node and make liquidity decisions to ensure the payment makes it to you. This solves a lot of headaches for node runners, merchants, and developers that are tasked constantly with managing their liquidity.

https://docs.voltage.cloud/flow/flow-2.0
Demo of Flow 2.0, the new Voltage LSP

channel creation without blockchain confirmed balance begins again
channel creating without confirms value locks

How it works
This LSP is created by leveraging zero-conf channels and preimage hashes. With these capabilities of Lightning, we can determine on the fly if a new channel is required, open it instantly if necessary, and send the payment to the receiver without ever taking custody of funds.

FRACTIONAL RESERVE LN balance
Msats with no bitcoin confirmed value peg

good luck with that

[fillippone]

For the beginners out there, an old article has just been updated with the latest version of LN and a few wallets:


Lightning Wallets Comparison

In depth functionalities review of all Bitcoin Lightning Wallets, analyzed in 4 categories.

As I said, the original article was first published a little bit more than a year ago, but it was updated and published at the beginning of this month.