off-chain solutions in general. ~ Binance chain
I wouldn't call a custodial made-up token an off-chain solution. Binance tries to trick people into using their own centralized chain, pretending it's Bitcoin.
Now, is a BTC pegged token bitcoin? It is not, but i guess it is useful for bitcoin adoption and awareness.
I think it's terrible for Bitcoin adoption, as it goes against everything Bitcoin stands for. Note that Binance could just as well have implemented LN on their exchange, so that their withdrawals are compatible with the rest of the world, but that wouldn't have inflated the value of their own made-up centralized chain to 75 billion dollars.
I'm not against centralized solutions for adoption, but Binance has different interests than Bitcoin (users).
I believe that we should support LN and use it, otherwise we will soon be forced to use a worse off-chain solution from time to time.
True. It serves as a good warning of what the alternative can be.
I want to add this as a condition: We'll speak of one topic at a time. Scalability? Scalability. Lightning's protocol? Lightning's protocol. Consensus? Consensus. This way we can clarify which are our interlocutor's disagreements and constructively (& friendly) correct them.
Added to the OP. This is what I meant by "Try to limit the scope", but you explained it better.
ok i must start with the first fatal flaw.
LN CAN infact work without bitcoin. LN's function allows it to peg to different blockchains.
Agreed. I assumed we were talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, but indeed, it can be applied broader.
LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network.
some LN users right now only have channels/nodes pegged to litecoin
True. But as far as I know, those LTC-LN-nodes won't interact with a BTC-LN-node, so even though they all use some form of LN, they won't mix up transactions.
many devs and LN users have lost funds. even with "punishment" clauses attached.
LN is still experimental, right? People have lost on-chain Bitcoin too, and I have no doubt people have lost their coins through LN. However, for future growth, I'm more interested if this can be improved up to the point where the chance of losing coins becomes small enough to be acceptable. Let's face it: people lose their physical wallet with cash too.
watchtowers.. ok now you are creating bank managers.
so now people have to trust their channel partner to not cheat. and then trust a bank manager to watch that the partner has not cheated.
I must say I like this system: if you don't trust the existing watchtowers, you can run your own. It's like creating your own bank managers! And if enough people do that, there will be enough watchtowers to rule out being offline when you need one.
soo much to do just to hope cheating does not happen.
I agree with you here! I (still) don't understand all the technical details of LN, but from what I've seen, it is indeed complicated. Much more complicated than signing a simple on-chain Bitcoin transaction. But, and that's why I like LN: when implemented and used correctly, it has the potential to make
secure transactions
abundant.
so much trust is needed to risk not having to watch 24/7
This, however, I don't agree with. For example: rebooting your LN node and being offline for a while isn't enough for your channel partner to broadcast an old channel state and steal your funds.
meanwhile, on bitcoin. when someone sends me value. its confirmed. finito. its mine, no takesy backsy's, no third party watchtower, no co-signer needed. no punishment. its just mine. done
Agreed.
But: say you sell coffee, and say you accept many small amounts of Bitcoin per day. Consolidating your funds will be expensive because all those small inputs increase your transaction size. LN doesn't have that problem, and I haven't even started yet about limited blockspace.
For me, it's quite simple: if you buy a car with Bitcoin, pay on-chain. If you buy a coffee, use LN. Both have their pros and cons depending on the situation.
For receiving: If I receive a payment worth $1000, I prefer Bitcoin on-chain. But if I receive 1000 payments of $1 each, I prefer Bitcoin LN.
when setting up a channel you have to put keys in even if you are just watching balance. those keys are needed actively all the time. even if you are not buying anything for yourself and instead just routing..
Agreed. Do you mean the risk of having your node compromised and your keys stolen? That is indeed a risk because you can't use cold storage in LN. My workaround is to lower the risk: I don't use LN for large amounts.
1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things
agree[ *] disagree[ *]
Assuming we're talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, I ticked both boxes. I agree, because LN and Bitcoin indeed use different networks, and are meant for different circumstances. But I also disagree, because the transactions are linked and LN-payments can eventually be settled on-chain.
2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree [ *] disagree[ ]
I agree on the msat.
I ignore the pico, that would be 10-12, not 10-11. But even though I'll never get the fractions of a satoshi back on-chain, I don't worry (nor care) about it. Exchanges or stock brokers also use dollars or euros up to 3 or more decimals for their internal accounting, and everyone accepts that.
3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ *] disagree[ ]
Obviously, this is different.
4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises
agree[ *] disagree[ ]
Also true.
5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ *] disagree[ *]
I ticked both again: it depends on the implementation. If I install a simple Bitcoin LN wallet, it won't work on any other chains. But it can be implemented, just like Bitcoin Core can be adjusted for many different altcoins.
6.LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ *] disagree[ ]
Assuming we're talking about LN on the Bitcoin network, I agree. There is no LN Bitcoin without on-chain channel opening and closing. And that's a huge threat to LN if on-chain fees rise.
lightning network can work without bitcoin even when partnering with users that have bitcoin channels
maybe by admitting to this you might be able to explain the positives of such, like highlighting atomic swaps
LN is its own network. there is no litecoin LN network and LN bitcoin network. thats just a user interface error in thinking. not a separation at code level that prevents such communication between peers.
This is new to me. But (I think) my earlier point stands: my Bitcoin LN wallet can't transact with for example a Litecoin LN wallet, because the transactions needed for on-chain settlement aren't compatible, hence the transaction on the LN-side can't be accepted.
i know you maybe ready to itch a scratch and say that within the LN island, there are separate towns like bitcoinLN and litecoinLN ..
That sounds reasonable
Does it make sense to limit this topic to the discussion about LN in relation to Bitcoin, and forget about the possibility of using LN on altcoin networks (at least for now)?
a condom is not a penis.
See:
I will call you out if you go off-topic
there is no consensus or network wide audit at the point of rounding up/down a valuation of a LN payment and creating a subsequent blockchain formatted contract.
I think this is correct. But: I think the node's rules on fee for onchain settlement are a much larger concern. Why would I bother about a fraction of a satoshi if the node sends thousands of satoshis as on-chain fee? It's just a rounding difference.
I assume all these
details will be explained in the fine print of large nodes in the future, or you can set your own preferred fees on your own node.
scammy partners can mess with this and not sign a settlement contract to update the promise value into something more tangeable the victim can use to settle his promised value
Are we still talking about a fraction of a satoshi, or about something bigger? If it's bigger, it might be nice to put it to the test: open a channel with someone's node, and see if you can actually scam them. My guess is it won't work, but if it does work, that's huge!
as you can see the average transactions in last 3 years
downward trajectory..
but the bloat is in an upward trajectory.
meaning the transaction per XXXbytes is becoming less efficient due to all these new "smart contract" bloat.
I don't think the average transaction size went up because of smart contracts, but it's because more users (and especially large users such as online casinos and exchanges) have finally realized batching transactions is more efficient in terms of blockspace and thus transaction fees than sending separate transactions for each individual withdrawal.
so because some altnetters want to contradict themselves, flip flop. and confuse even themselves with what they are saying
lets try this one more time. the questions are made simple to avoid any extended waffly clauses, its simply to get flip floppers to finally pledge their opinions to agree or disagree with certain aspects
I'm not a native English speaker, and it's kinda hard to understand what you mean if you talk about "altnetters", "flip flop", "waffy clauses" and "flip floppers".
Please keep this topic civil.