Topic: Don't we need to increase block weight/size? (Read 725 times)

Centralization is not as black and white as many people are making out and having the "Lightning Network" with
it major banking hubs is a step down this road anyway which then becomes a single point of failure to anyone
that does not want to open more than one channel because closing a channel can be mightily costly when it
comes to BTC mining fees.

A cluster of specialized nodes in a star configuration acting as route managers is perfectly acceptable to me
and could be quite logical as well and it does not mean that Bill Gates gets to pull the plug on Bitcoin

Quite simply the "Every node for himself" is a system that does not scale and the development team knew that
eight years ago but have now all seemed to have cleared off to live it up in the sun.

The lightning Network creates more problems than it solves so look at the picture I upload here
http://forum.cryptolivecap.com/posts/t31-Lightning-Network
and let me know if you think it is wrong

   

Billions they say on top of Bitcoin will be worth a billion $USD soon but in the real world you will have to address
the issue of channels and intermediary channels storing private ledgers with each other and these transactions on top
of the ones we already have hitting the block-chain on settlement.

Sure hypothetical I could open a channel with you and we both agree to deposit $1 in the account (Locks it on BTC-BC)
and send $0.10 backwards and forwards a million times to each other but in the real world that's not going to happen
and we know it 

let me draw you a picture of what they have planned where anyone with a wallet can become a bank, err .... sorry,, hub

You---------->Sub branch<><><><>Main Branch<><>Int Bank<><><>Int Bank<><><>Fanny-May<><>MadOff<--------Me
Deposits $100                    $20,000                       $10m               $1bn                  $50m                     $1m              $100

See lightning Network routes, read the document and now tell me that I am wrong and can you not see that
the current miners are going to be the banks because not only do they have the hardware but they also have
the BTC to be used as seed money for the channels.

Anyone in the USA can become the president so long as their name ends in Bush, Kennedy or Clinton so
please bro debate me if you think my version is wrong and Bitcoin is not being programmed to become a central bank
much like the IMF or FED just to make it scale but don't go working for the banksters will you bro!

I am so happy that you of all people raised this point 

Channels were according to some only going to be open a few days, not years so lets agree on calling it a month
and correct me if I am wrong but any party to the contract can have the channel closed

You see now we have this middleman, you know the hub thing that's not a bank apparently and the remaining balance in
the off-chain private ledger held by a middle-man  is a credit to you because your mum just sent you a $2000 gift
and you need the money back on block (Real BTC public block-chain) because you want to buy $100 Ripple and spend $100 as cash.

Question

Why on earth would this middleman act as a conduit for Bitcoin because it does not scale be happy to send you
your $2000 and then be forced to pay $30 fees to the BTC miners for the privilege ?

if it looks, walks, talks and acts like a bank it probably is a bank   

As it's being sold these banks cannot fake BTC in theory but you will have to wait for that debate
another day but to be honest I don't think your able to answer and sad to say but here you cannot
use that old trick of "Poster can remove any comments he does not like" because it upsets him

No. That was to accommodate billions of users, not millions. Bitcoin only has millions of users right now.



Lightning will let us do 10's of millions of transactions per second with the 4MB block weight Bitcoin has right now. And it was only increased to 4MB less than 6 months ago. That's going to be enough for now.

Hard forks need to be planned very carefully, there's a whole lot more to consider than just the block weight. There are so many changes that could or should be made, and hard forks are so delicate that those changes should be taken with exceptional care, otherwise we may invite chaos to destroy Bitcoin's reputation (and value). I think we can all agree that stable limited utility and slow consensus building towards a sensibly planned hard fork is much better than the chaos of big blocks fork-of-the-month shouting matches.

YESS!!  Even in the Lightning Network Whitepaper they were looking for a mininum of 133mb block size and never imagine there would be SOO much resistance to a gradual increase in block size.

Yes the damn' blocksize needs to be MUCH larger to bring down these transactions fees which are discouraging even wider usage (and don't give me, like this one jerk on Reddit did, the argument that transactions aren't high). 

Try buying a cup of coffee with bitcoin and see how THAT goes!

It means that you can receive lightning payments even if all your balance in a channel is spent. So, instead of buying Bitcoin on exchange and withdrawing it to your wallet, you can withdraw it to your lightning wallet if it has at least one open channel. This means that most users will probably have to just pay one on-chain fee to create a channel and then use that channel for a very good time - there's no need to frequently open and close channels and pay higher onchain fees.

You can refill channels? What does that mean?

A very superficial way.

Ripple is a 2nd layer network to all the systems it interfaces with. Lightning is a Bitcoin-only 2nd layer. That's where comparisons end.

But in Ripple, the last time I tried it some years ago, the Bitcoin you own is deposited in a gateway and that is what "backs up" the amount you have in your Ripple wallet. In the wallet, you old Bitcoin in the form of something called "gateway.BTC.IOU" with the "trust channel" amount allowed only up to what you have in that gateway.

This is the interesting part, you can also open a "trust channel" to another gateway allowing you to send your gateway1.BTC.IOUs to gateway2.BTC.IOUs, and the clearing goes through Ripple's orderbook.

In a way, Lightning and Ripple are the same, but without the 3rd party trust on the gateways included.

Transactions are fully secure, there are no security problems to worry about as far as transactions go. The largest security problem with the Lightning Network is that nodes are required to have an unencrypted private key in memory to allow for accepting payments at all times.

Technically, you don't need to close channels. You can refill them through the lightning network, and so you would only ever make one last transaction on-chain.

Will increasing the block size permanently solve the problem of high mining fees and unconfirmed transactions ? No .
Block size increase will only give some relief for a fixed amount of time . That would be highly expensive to increase the overall block size .
After some time , ( analyzing the number of people joining the bitcoin world ) the increased block chain would again fall short of size , thus making this problem unstable and temporary .
The Lightening Network is the best way of solving this problem that would use Peer-to-peer transactions and would also be a big relief to the unconfirmed transactions and high mining fees by not disturbing the overall functioning of bitcoin . The fees would drastically decrease through LN .                                             

I've been reading a lot about the lightning network, trying to understand if this is the solution to the scaling problem.

However, it is still unclear how secure the transactions will be and there will still be the issue of high fees when you open/close a channel.

Bitcoin is at the chasm, for those who are familiar with the Technology Adoption Lifecycle. In order to cross the chasm the Early Majority need to see and feel that the technology is not only safe and secure, but that it will handle major adoption. The technology will not cross the chasm until this is proven.

Some people say and believe that there is ample time to prove and test the Lightning Network, however, there was a major momentum happening with the technology entering the mainstream before the end of 2017. This momentum would have provided great leverage to cross the chasm, if the technology had been ready to scale.

I would like to explore a solution that is not increasing the block size, which has already been done via Bitcoin Cash, but instead to decrease the difficulty. Not the number of confirmations required, but to find the lowest difficulty while maintaining the stability of the network. I understand the bottleneck will become how quickly the nodes are able to communicate with the network.

I have started to write up a rationale for this solution, but it requires a bit of editing. I will post it as soon as it is ready. The solution acknowledges the fact that 80% of Bitcoins have already been mined, how to create a fair economic valuation method, and the need for a global public good fund.

If Bitcoin is to enter the majority and become a global store of value for the trade of goods and services then it will disrupt how governments operate, which will have an effect on our infrastructure and welfare. These are things that need to be discussed as we find a new form of communication and governance.

The Internet is a tool for communication, but forums, wikis and Facebook are not the ideal solution to communicate our self-governance.

The majority adoption of Bitcoin and a new system of communication and governance may go hand in hand, along with a method for distributing funds to the public good as a function of our new economic system.

First things first: I do a little study of Lightning, but wouldn't be considered any kind of expert on the subject. I certainly don't know anything about today's Ripple, which has no doubt changed since I first checked Ripple out (many years ago).

But your assertion that Lightning channels are backed by real BTC is correct. Lightning takes advantage of a protocol designed to make it safe to use un-broadcasted Bitcoin transactions as they guarantee ownership of the funds in those un-broadcasted transactions, if the transaction is broadcasted on-chain (which is what closing a channel entails).


Maybe an analogy for this would be the various payment processors that exist in the internet age: Square, PayPal, Moneygram etc. PayPal, for instance, has just one regular bank account to which all PayPal customers send money. PayPal then has a separate accounts system that tells them who owns what amount of the balance in that one bank account, so people with PayPal membership can send each other money without ACH or SWIFT or any other mainstream system.
 
With Lightning, you can open your own decentralised Bitcoin payment processor (a channel) that lets you forge the Bitcoin transactions you would have use on-chain, but just without sending them, in the full knowledge that you can send them should you wish to send that money on-chain instead. So it's like letting everyone open up a private payments processor for Bitcoin, but with the difference being that there's a protocol for all the individual payment processors to send BTC between each other, i.e. Square can send to Moneygram using the same system. And you are your own independent peer-to-peer Square or PayPal, you are still your own bank in the same way you are when using the blockchain, no one has different rights or abilities than anyone else on Lightning.

From what I remember about Ripple, you don't own anything. Banking corporations control the Ripple payment gateways, and can accept or deny your transactions for any reason they choose. So it's not peer-to-peer at all (despite being endorsed by the so-called p2p foundation), because there are privileged nodes on the network that can dictate what you can and can't do, no different to the regular banking system.

Yes, we need the block size increase in other to decrease the block difficulty and to aid low network fee and fast transaction confirmation. But due to the way bitcoiner choose side the change cannot happen... However, if you check Satoshi mail list right before bitcoin implementation, James A. Donald ask him question about block size.
 

Yes, I know they are different. But if you bother to study how they both work, on the surface, you would see some similarities between the two. But let us wait for CarltonBanks to answer my question.

Yes correct in the case of Bitcoin due to the way it has been implemented and all that happens is
20,000 nodes all need to keep 200gb of data in sync so it's one big set of files that is replicated however
this is not what you call distributed processing which would be more like 50 sets of nodes working in small teams
teams with each team being responsible for 1/50th of the data.

Ist year students studying computer science in university could had worked out that one big fat data
structure would reach a limit and when it would be reached but i think what has happened with Bitcoin is that
cryptographic experts (Yes i say they are good) have been allowed to take over from computer programmers
and academia has been allowed to run wild, hence each stage has been over engineered with the basics being
forgotten.

Ripple presents data as if it "On-block" and can do 50,000 transactions per second and not just seven but
I would guess it uses a tree type structure much like DNS servers work but this is far from the only configuration
and you can have a star structure and you need to understand that centralization is not as black and white as
they are making out and Lightning to some degree uses it anyway

I mean mining to see who's got the fastest processor, how did us true professionals ever manage without it
for all these years and believe me I have a lot more to say about the architecture then I can discus here and
it's not me that's cocked up and cannot decide in two years if we should be using Segwit or not     

 

Who is others? BCash? Ether?
Vitalik said transaction fees will never go above 1 cent, now its like 5$ or even more.
Only difference is that the volume on others is a lot smaller.
‘’On-Block’’ is obviously not a solution.

But we can do that now and set the mining fee low and wait for ever and a day for a miner to pick the block up
so maybe your talking about the fees charged by the larger LN hubs or what I visualize as international banks in which case
market forces might apply not that i see the need for this approach

I don't know, all these developers working for nuffin, well i wonder how they make a living 

Developers are eating the cream on the cake with miners, Anti-cen is asking the development team for considering a change in Bitcoin.
Miners are against any change, why change if you can earn more money? why do you think *devs are in charge?
Lightning network will stop manipulation of fees, if miners get to charge high fees on their hubs, people would use the hubs with the lowest fees.

So "On-Block" was god until it didn't scale like they knew all along and now "Off-Block" is cool

if others can manage to keep it all on block then maybe there is something wrong with the
development team but this statement excludes all BTC clones because they all suffer from the
same bad foundations and will hit the same problems.

Read up about Block-Matrix to deal with scaling which includes a degree of centralization
but so does LN anyway and also introduces lots more problems too.