Author

Topic: Announcing the Thunder Network Alpha Release (Read 1122 times)

sr. member
Activity: 270
Merit: 250
Seeing is believing my friend ---> " Scale: According to our tests so far, we can achieve better-than-Visa scale (100,000 TPS) with only a few thousand nodes on the network " .... If that is possible, a

company like VISA can just buy your company and double their capacity and kill Bitcoin. Where are these nodes or were they tested with virtual machines? I hope they give us a live demonstration

on how this will work, and some proof of these statements.  Roll Eyes

Visa can buy the blockchain.info, or the thunder network, but there will other providers appear. It cannot buy them all.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
I'll obviously have to read more and maybe try this out soon, but it was my understanding that the speed of 100 000 TPS was more based on available nodes? With fewer nodes, fewer transactions? If that is the case then this technology seems pretty scalable to whatever is required by the network.
Correct, just read this part carefully:
I don't really get the overall idea here, but what caught my attention are the scale and extremely cheap payments.
Start with reading the Lightning Network wallpaper and finding ELI5 explanations.

And with cheap payments,this could entice more people into the bitcoin world.
Bitcoin is already cheap; I don't see why this would make a difference as far as that is concerned.
legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1058
I don't really get the overall idea here, but what caught my attention are the scale and extremely cheap payments. 100k tx/s with only a few thousand nodes is a really great achievement. And with cheap payments,this could entice more people into the bitcoin world.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4788
for me i just see LN and TN as a offchain solution like coinbase/bitstamp.

you have to send funds to a special address (just like depositing funds to a service)

then you have to log into a client (just like logging into a service) and then move funds within that system(service)..

the stupid things is that not everyone is going to be sending funds to the same destination when they do transactions within LN/TN and so the settling of funds WONT be aggregating from 100,000 inputs with 100,000 outputs.. into 1input 1output

instead these settling transactions will be HUGE, yet still limited to the onchain capacity of todays ~2500, near future segwits ~3800 or next years roadmap of ~7600 input/outputs per 10 minutes

infact many people are suggesting that the ONCHAIN blocks will start to show just ONE large transaction from a LN/TN that will cause issues for people wanting to use onchain transactions. which will also cause issues because the headache of getting the LN lock transaction accepted will mean people will end up forced to lock in more funds on a more long term bases into LN/TN for the chance of actually transacting, rather than for people to voluntarily just use LN/TN now and again, due to the fact that the onchain blocks are always crammed with a LN/TN transaction bloating the block.

imagine it instead of 2500 transactions from 2500 different people.. there will be 1 transaction with 2500 input/outputs that have been aggregated from maybe 3500 different people. some may say thats a benefit.. but if every block is filled with this single transaction.. then there wont be much left for people to use onchain transactions.

knowing that the average person makes ~42 payments a month (statistics of both bitcoin and visa) a system such as LN/TN is not the ultimate solution for scaling purely because of the inability to aggregate lots of peoples different destinations into just a few.

the 2 times LN/TN would be useful. is:
for something like coinbase where people move funds between deposit addresses but the ultimate settlement transaction is coinbases single coldstore address.

gamblers who send funds to the same 'bet' address multiple times a day, as it would appear as just one input/output(per user) at settlement as oppose to multiple input output per day onchain multiplied by users

in my eyes LN/TN will only be useful where there is an ultimate static destination that receives alot off volume per day or week from the same collection of users, rather than a system anyone can use to buy anything from anywhere really quickly
legendary
Activity: 1382
Merit: 1002
Wow this sounds amazing, i paticullarly liked the "better than visa scale" comment.  more than a 100000 TPS  Shocked
This seems like a bit 'overkill'. Bitcoin is far away from needing 100 000 TPS. I'd be very satisfied if we had a capacity of 1000 TPS at the moment as there would never be some kind of backlog due to inadequate amount of space (unless there was some kind of attack) for quite some time.

I believe this could potentially open doors to new avenues of attack that wouldn't be possible on the main blockchain.
There might be attack vectors for the off-chain system, but that is rather unavoidable. However, I'm certain that those will be discovered and prevented on time (or at least most of them).

I'll obviously have to read more and maybe try this out soon, but it was my understanding that the speed of 100 000 TPS was more based on available nodes? With fewer nodes, fewer transactions? If that is the case then this technology seems pretty scalable to whatever is required by the network.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Wow this sounds amazing, i paticullarly liked the "better than visa scale" comment.  more than a 100000 TPS  Shocked
This seems like a bit 'overkill'. Bitcoin is far away from needing 100 000 TPS. I'd be very satisfied if we had a capacity of 1000 TPS at the moment as there would never be some kind of backlog due to inadequate amount of space (unless there was some kind of attack) for quite some time.

I believe this could potentially open doors to new avenues of attack that wouldn't be possible on the main blockchain.
There might be attack vectors for the off-chain system, but that is rather unavoidable. However, I'm certain that those will be discovered and prevented on time (or at least most of them).
legendary
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1070
i guess this will be centralized enough to make me hate it, like LN is, i f it destroy the fundamental of bitcoin regarding decentralization

then it has no merit to even try to fix impertive issues about the bitcoin capacity
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000
This will definitely be awesome if it works as expected after being stress tested but I'm just a little wary of off-chain payments. I believe this could potentially open doors to new avenues of attack that wouldn't be possible on the main blockchain.
hero member
Activity: 1106
Merit: 521
Wow this sounds amazing, i paticullarly liked the "better than visa scale" comment.  more than a 100000 TPS  Shocked
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie

It doesn't explain how routing problem is solved. Alice paying Ken needs to find a route via Dan, Eve and John. Any network maintained by peers will face the same problems as mesh networks:

Quote
Very long story short, the overhead in maintaining the link state information in meshed networks swamps the available bandwidth for even modest (think 20-40) numbers of nodes. Basically, as nodes are constantly moving/coming on- and off-line, nodes have to know which nodes are in the connection graph, so they exchange that information. But that eats up all of the bandwidth amazingly quickly, leaving no room for actual traffic.
There are some other issues with meshed networks (latency, battery usage when you're just a client node, etc.), but especially for those of the kind described/dreamed about here (which are also known as MANETS -- mobile ad-hoc networks), the routing issue is a huge one.
Finally, I should note the above isn't just academic; several companies have tried to build products based on these kinds of networks -- military contractors being one of note -- and have pretty much come up short.
So until the really fundamental issues are worked out, which is in the realm of academic research, not implementation, we probably aren't going to see anything like this.

If you ignore this problem you will likely repeat http://www.zdnet.com/article/painful-lesson-in-olpc-mesh-networking-for-mongolians/.
legendary
Activity: 3556
Merit: 9709
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
Looks like an interesting prospect but it's very, very early to discuss its merits.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
From what I can tell they effectively have a veto ability when anyone attempts to make any changes to the consensus rules.
They can't.

If a scammer were to open a payment channel and engage in a series of transactions that results in his "balance" being zero or effectively zero (very small economic amounts) then he will have nothing to lose in attempting to broadcast an "old" closing transaction that would potentially result in him receiving more btc then what he is owed from the payment channel. The payment channel will be protected by the "penalty" transaction that they can broadcast, however it is not a 100% guarantee that this will successfully confirm and in the off chance that it does not then the scammer is able to steal from the payment channel. If the "penalty" transaction does confirm then the scammer will have lost nothing because he was owned nothing in the first place.
Interesting. Source?

Each time a new transaction on the LN is done, a series of transactions must be signed and sent to the various counter-parties in a very specific order. I fear that LN clients will potentially be tricked into thinking that they have received a signed transaction from the other party when in fact it has not and/or being tricked into sending a signed transaction in the incorrect order, potentially exposing the owner to risk of loss.
"You fear"? Speculation is not how we determine flaws. Anyhow, people need to be much more open to these solutions especially since they're in very early stages of their development. There are bound to be problems, flaws and whatnot and that is not necessarily a bad thing (at this point in the cycle).
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
I don't think this is strange. I trust that blockchain.info's best interests are aligned with that of Bitcoin. I cannot say the same with blockstream. 
Of course, everyone has the right intentions besides Blockstream.  Roll Eyes
That is not true. I just do not personally trust blockstream, and I feel that they effectively have much too much power of Bitcoin currently. From what I can tell they effectively have a veto ability when anyone attempts to make any changes to the consensus rules. I do not believe that any one entity should have the ability to veto any proposed change.

Maybe I was misinterpreting the announcement. I was hoping that bc.i was able to resolve some of the many flaws with LN. 
What kind of flaws are we talking about? I'm not sure where you've gotten your information from. Most of the "flaws" (that I've read about) was just 'ranting' in articles about how they will not be able to solve the decentralized routing and similar engineering tasks.
If a scammer were to open a payment channel and engage in a series of transactions that results in his "balance" being zero or effectively zero (very small economic amounts) then he will have nothing to lose in attempting to broadcast an "old" closing transaction that would potentially result in him receiving more btc then what he is owed from the payment channel. The payment channel will be protected by the "penalty" transaction that they can broadcast, however it is not a 100% guarantee that this will successfully confirm and in the off chance that it does not then the scammer is able to steal from the payment channel. If the "penalty" transaction does confirm then the scammer will have lost nothing because he was owned nothing in the first place.

Each time a new transaction on the LN is done, a series of transactions must be signed and sent to the various counter-parties in a very specific order. I fear that LN clients will potentially be tricked into thinking that they have received a signed transaction from the other party when in fact it has not and/or being tricked into sending a signed transaction in the incorrect order, potentially exposing the owner to risk of loss.

As it stands now, it is fairly trivial to have a wallet stored entirely offline, even one that is used several times per day. The number of signed transactions required to complete a LN transaction effectively makes it impossible to keep funds continued in a payment channel offline.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
I don't think this is strange. I trust that blockchain.info's best interests are aligned with that of Bitcoin. I cannot say the same with blockstream. 
Of course, everyone has the right intentions besides Blockstream.  Roll Eyes

Maybe I was misinterpreting the announcement. I was hoping that bc.i was able to resolve some of the many flaws with LN. 
What kind of flaws are we talking about? I'm not sure where you've gotten your information from. Most of the "flaws" (that I've read about) was just 'ranting' in articles about how they will not be able to solve the decentralized routing and similar engineering tasks.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
This makes me a little bit less uncomfortable with LN, however I would say that I am still overall opposed to LN.
Strange.
I don't think this is strange. I trust that blockchain.info's best interests are aligned with that of Bitcoin. I cannot say the same with blockstream. 

I would be interested in reading the white-paper on the Thunder Network and am curious to see how it compares to LN. Does anyone have a link to the White-paper and/or know if one exists?
Quote
Today, we release the alpha version of our Thunder Network, the first usable implementation of the Lightning network for off chain bitcoin payments that settles back to the main bitcoin blockchain.
It is just an implementation of LN, I'm not sure why it would need a separate White-paper.
Maybe I was misinterpreting the announcement. I was hoping that bc.i was able to resolve some of the many flaws with LN. 
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
This makes me a little bit less uncomfortable with LN, however I would say that I am still overall opposed to LN.
Strange.

I would be interested in reading the white-paper on the Thunder Network and am curious to see how it compares to LN. Does anyone have a link to the White-paper and/or know if one exists?
-snip-

Do I still understand it correctly?
Not really, no. You are speculating, just like everyone, as to what is going to happen with the fees. Whether you like it or not, there is no such thing as 'mainstream' adoption and a 'mainchain only Bitcoin'.
legendary
Activity: 3542
Merit: 1965
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
I have one concern with these off-chain solutions. We are bargaining on transactions increasing in future to a level where it will replace the block rewards and still make it profitable for miners to mine, because they will rely on miners fees from these transactions to cover their cost.

If we move over to off-chain solutions to do the bulk of the transactions, we will see a decline in on-chain transactions and we would never reach a level where miners fees increase enough to make it viable for miners to continue mining.

Do I still understand it correctly?
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
This makes me a little bit less uncomfortable with LN, however I would say that I am still overall opposed to LN.

I would be interested in reading the white-paper on the Thunder Network and am curious to see how it compares to LN. Does anyone have a link to the White-paper and/or know if one exists?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Seeing is believing my friend ---> " Scale: According to our tests so far, we can achieve better-than-Visa scale (100,000 TPS) with only a few thousand nodes on the network " .... If that is possible, a

company like VISA can just buy your company and double their capacity and kill Bitcoin.
No. A system that they have no control of is of no use to them. Additionally, they can't kill Bitcoin in any form by buying any kind of companies. Besides, this is open source. Although I'm going to wait for someone to conduct and publish the results before I believe these claims as well.

I'll wait for the trustless implementation, thx.
Quote
Until both CSV and SegWit are implemented on the bitcoin blockchain, transactions are not enforceable at the bitcoin protocol level. So, the current Thunder prototype is best suited for transactions among a trusted network of users.
Read the page.
full member
Activity: 203
Merit: 168
I'll wait for the trustless implementation, thx.
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
Sounds more like Malware also Miners set the fees not adhoc networks,

if it requires local trust instead of mining strength then it wont

be possible to integrate into core
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1048
Still waiting for this to pan out a little more, but if this is true/works, I bet raising the blocksize won't be such an issue to the Asian mining conglomerate anymore. They will have to adapt to survive, and the fees should drift down a bit in the spirit of market competition.

Good job Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
If it is true, then it's one of the biggest steps of bitcoin.
No more topics about "Bitcoin is dead" or "bitcoin can't keep up with fiat because is too slow".

But only if it is true... and right now i dont see proofs  Sad
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1074
Seeing is believing my friend ---> " Scale: According to our tests so far, we can achieve better-than-Visa scale (100,000 TPS) with only a few thousand nodes on the network " .... If that is possible, a

company like VISA can just buy your company and double their capacity and kill Bitcoin. Where are these nodes or were they tested with virtual machines? I hope they give us a live demonstration

on how this will work, and some proof of these statements.  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
https://blog.blockchain.com/2016/05/16/announcing-the-thunder-network-alpha-release/

Quote
At Blockchain, we’re on a mission to create an open, accessible, and equitable financial future. Since our inception, we have focused on building products that make it easy for everyday people to use bitcoin to store and transfer value all over the world. We make Bitcoin usable and useful. We’ve been able to do that because we develop with a user-focused mandate.

A faster, cheaper, and more functional network would deliver real value to our users, so we were excited by the growth of research into payment channel technology on the bitcoin network and innovative uses of this technology. We were particularly interested in the idea of using smart contracts to build what are basically super-charged payments networks, as outlined in a white paper by the lightning.network team. Last year, we hired a talented engineer, Mats Jerratsch, who had been pioneering innovation in this vertical to work with our engineering team and lead research and development on a network based around these ideas.

Lightning networks have been purely conceptual, research based, and only in test nets and labs – until now. Today, we release the alpha version of our Thunder Network, the first usable implementation of the Lightning network for off chain bitcoin payments that settles back to the main bitcoin blockchain.

We used it internally a few days ago. Click here to learn all about Transaction 0 between Mats and me.

Thunder has the potential to facilitate secure, trustless, and instant payments. It has the ability to unleash the power of microtransactions, to allow the bitcoin network to handle heavy loads, and to increase user privacy. In this Alpha version, we prove that it can be done. From a feature perspective, there is both a node and a wallet (with GUI) present. Even more importantly:


    Settlement to the bitcoin blockchain

    Scale: According to our tests so far, we can achieve better-than-Visa scale (100,000 TPS) with only a few thousand nodes on the
    network

    Extremely cheap payments: fees will develop naturally, due to the free market in an open and permissionless network and will
    fundamentally be lower than on-chain payments

    Encryption and Authentication: All communications between all nodes and wallets are encrypted using AES-CTR and take place only
    after completing authentication.

    Seed Peers and automatically provide them with network topology using a basic gossip protocol similar to the one used in the
    bitcoin network, which allows complex routes over multiple hops

    Payment Channels can be opened and closed at will, with transactions settling onto the bitcoin blockchain

    Payment Debate: Across the route each hop will renegotiate a new status with the next hop, as a payment makes its way through
    the network with cryptography in place to prevent fraud

    Relaying Payments: TN will relay payments over multiple nodes in the network automatically, using encrypted routing. No one
    knows who made a payment, allowing for more privacy

    Settle payments automatically, no manual intervention needed. The settlement will ripple back through the network to provide
    proof-of-payment

    Instant Payments that are irrevocable the moment you see them

Until both CSV and SegWit are implemented on the bitcoin blockchain, transactions are not enforceable at the bitcoin protocol level. So, the current Thunder prototype is best suited for transactions among a trusted network of users. Try this amongst your dev team or amongst your trusted internet friends, but don’t use it for real payments. Remember: this is alpha testing software.

So why release this now? We believe it is critical to get something in the hands of users as soon as possible to gain feedback that will enable us to be ready when the network is. So review it, test it out, open an issue on GitHub, or send us an email. If you want to work on tech like this full time, head here and apply to join our team.

We encourage you to find out more at:

www.blockchain.com/thunder


https://github.com/blockchain/thunder

Lightning Network, Thunder Network.What next? Flash Network? Grin

It's great that we can see all those different companies trying to compete against each other, this can only mean a better end product for us the consumers, and that is always good news. I can't wait until LN and the rest of this stuff is operative. All the FUDsters about how bitcoin can't do more than 7tx/s will be crying on their sleep when we beat all other payment processors on the planet.
legendary
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1016
https://blog.blockchain.com/2016/05/16/announcing-the-thunder-network-alpha-release/

Quote
At Blockchain, we’re on a mission to create an open, accessible, and equitable financial future. Since our inception, we have focused on building products that make it easy for everyday people to use bitcoin to store and transfer value all over the world. We make Bitcoin usable and useful. We’ve been able to do that because we develop with a user-focused mandate.

A faster, cheaper, and more functional network would deliver real value to our users, so we were excited by the growth of research into payment channel technology on the bitcoin network and innovative uses of this technology. We were particularly interested in the idea of using smart contracts to build what are basically super-charged payments networks, as outlined in a white paper by the lightning.network team. Last year, we hired a talented engineer, Mats Jerratsch, who had been pioneering innovation in this vertical to work with our engineering team and lead research and development on a network based around these ideas.

Lightning networks have been purely conceptual, research based, and only in test nets and labs – until now. Today, we release the alpha version of our Thunder Network, the first usable implementation of the Lightning network for off chain bitcoin payments that settles back to the main bitcoin blockchain.

We used it internally a few days ago. Click here to learn all about Transaction 0 between Mats and me.

Thunder has the potential to facilitate secure, trustless, and instant payments. It has the ability to unleash the power of microtransactions, to allow the bitcoin network to handle heavy loads, and to increase user privacy. In this Alpha version, we prove that it can be done. From a feature perspective, there is both a node and a wallet (with GUI) present. Even more importantly:


    Settlement to the bitcoin blockchain

    Scale: According to our tests so far, we can achieve better-than-Visa scale (100,000 TPS) with only a few thousand nodes on the
    network

    Extremely cheap payments: fees will develop naturally, due to the free market in an open and permissionless network and will
    fundamentally be lower than on-chain payments

    Encryption and Authentication: All communications between all nodes and wallets are encrypted using AES-CTR and take place only
    after completing authentication.

    Seed Peers and automatically provide them with network topology using a basic gossip protocol similar to the one used in the
    bitcoin network, which allows complex routes over multiple hops

    Payment Channels can be opened and closed at will, with transactions settling onto the bitcoin blockchain

    Payment Debate: Across the route each hop will renegotiate a new status with the next hop, as a payment makes its way through
    the network with cryptography in place to prevent fraud

    Relaying Payments: TN will relay payments over multiple nodes in the network automatically, using encrypted routing. No one
    knows who made a payment, allowing for more privacy

    Settle payments automatically, no manual intervention needed. The settlement will ripple back through the network to provide
    proof-of-payment

    Instant Payments that are irrevocable the moment you see them

Until both CSV and SegWit are implemented on the bitcoin blockchain, transactions are not enforceable at the bitcoin protocol level. So, the current Thunder prototype is best suited for transactions among a trusted network of users. Try this amongst your dev team or amongst your trusted internet friends, but don’t use it for real payments. Remember: this is alpha testing software.

So why release this now? We believe it is critical to get something in the hands of users as soon as possible to gain feedback that will enable us to be ready when the network is. So review it, test it out, open an issue on GitHub, or send us an email. If you want to work on tech like this full time, head here and apply to join our team.

We encourage you to find out more at:

www.blockchain.com/thunder


https://github.com/blockchain/thunder

Lightning Network, Thunder Network.What next? Flash Network? Grin
Jump to: