Topic: even r/bitcoin admits, LN still requires huge blocks to scale - page 2. (Read 1149 times)

I'm sorry, but you are wrong: we do need bigger blocks right now.
Bigger blocks are the ONLY way to protect from spam.  If you know another way, let me know.

Maybe this will clear things up for you:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18377356

I do admit that even segwit or LN needs huge blocks to scale and that is their weakness that was exposed by the bitcoin unlimited group. Both group has its own weakness and strength. For the LN it is the problem on scaling while for the BU it is the bugs in their system. But there is another group that is making an entrance and that is the UASF, this time it is not the miners but the bitcoin holders, economic players, exchanges and payment processor that will dictate on what changes must be accepted to develop bitcoin. I dont know how it works but at least it will make the miners realize that it is the holders who must determine the fate of bitcoin and not the miners.

We don't need bigger blocks right now. What we truly need is better protection from spam.
Say, we increase block size to 2 MB today. That barely solve anything, space is still limited.
As long as there will be someone willing to pay for spam, and no countermeasures, problem with block size will remain.

Poor Franky1, another day spewing out his daily FUD. How much are you going to earn today with all that trolling? Dont you got nothing better to do than sitting behind youre pc with youre fat ass making troll post after troll post? Youre noob ass will be raped at Github when they see all this bullshit.

fox = /btc
cnn = /bitcoin

if you stop reading reddit for bitcoin information
if you stop watching FOX for world information.

and instead only look for the source information, you will have nice facts

LN pretends to be permissionless by saying about no third party(word play).. but LN hides the requirement of 2nd party(again word play).

funny part is. LN is permissioned.. even without a 3rd party 'bank'.. they try to trivialise 2nd party
try to put $100 into your spouses handbag. and then knowing you need her agreement to move it. is needing her permission.
if you ever had a dual bank account with a partner you know arguments erupt when you want to buy another woman some jewellery but need your wifes signature.


there are many LN concepts.
several called lightning, and others called things like thunder, flare etc. all with different mechanisms.

at the moment the concepts are changing and finding new ways of working due to many attack/blackmail/internal contract squabbling that can occur to break contracts

id say there isnt really an upto date paper thats articulate and finalised. even now the LN devs are hating HTLC and preferring to go the route of schnorr+other mechanism

If ver bu corruption was gone, we could have nice things

LN isn't permissioned in the sense you need a third party -- you just need a second party (the one you are transacting with).

But Frankie, do you know of any good articles that explain how the 'i won't have to open a channel with everyone else' problem
is actually solved (presumably with decrementing timelocks?)   The white paper is fairly vague.

2mb blocks = 4000tx~  yep i agree with that..(if it was 2mb baseblock or 2mb of users using segwit keys with a 1mb baseblock ((2mb weight)))
but then the maths gets funky

over a year. (144blocks * 365=52560blocks)
4000tx * 52560 blocks = 210,240,000tx a year

knowing that a channel is 2 party (2 people deposit their funds to co-sign) means to have a channel, 2 deposit tx's and one combined withdrawal tx. thats 3 onchain tx's for 2 people

knowing most users will have ~2 channels+ to be part of the routing system
it is not just 3 onchain tx's for 2 people.. but average 6 onchain tx's used to set up the LN routing

so lets just round it to 3tx's per person just to keep the variables simple

so at 2mb blocks with a 1 year locktime thats=70,080,000 users
20mb blocks with a 1 year locktime thats=700,800,000 users
200mb blocks with a 1 year locktime thats=7,008,000,000 users

---

the funky things to think about.
who would be able to survive a year by instead going with just rusty russels LN's pre-set ~$60 allowable suggested deposit.
-end result people close and open more channels per year to refresh their deposits.
or
who would willingly lock in their whole hoard for a year just to avoid the fortnightly utility of ~$60
-end result people close and open more channels per year to refresh their deposits.

its suggested a 2 week lock for $60 average safe spend. thus countering debates of
whole hoards for a year locked into permissioned 'accounts'
or
whole year with only $60 locked into permissioned 'accounts'
(remember you need other party to co-sign, so dont pretend its permissionless)

meaning 200mb blocks(year) *26(fortnight) = 5.2gb blocks for 2week locktimes for 7bill people
or at this years ~2mb per fortnight = 2,695,384 users

---

this is why even LN is not the "visa by midnight" solution.
because 2week locks=2.6m users at 2mb blocks or 7bill users at 5.2gb blocks
because 1year locks=70m users at 2mb blocks or 7bill users at 200mb blocks

this is where once segwit is activated and people see not everyone is using segwit keys to achieve the 4000-4500tx estimate
(which actually makes the LN numbers worse than the numbers i emboldened)
where LN wont achieve more than 2.6mill users for 2mb blocks with a 2week locktime..

those cough decision makers cough
next will be promoting sidechains(altcoins) as the real "visa" by midnight.
where peoples hoards are permanently moved and locked into a sidechain of 1:1 value so they never need to open close on bitcoins mainnet.
because they will be opening and closing on other altcoins (sidechains)

P.S people wont lock funds into LN because it is (sorry to burst bubble) permissioned (required counter party online/active to co-sign)

thus leading to... yep hyper ledger..of multiple chains, making bitcoin useless by being blocked by all the locking tx's moving funds to other altcoins.
and the excessive weight of UTXO of 7billion people making it undesirable to be a node for bitcoin. especially if your not using bitcoin because your on a altcoin(sidechain)

lol... pretty sure you got it backwards sonny.... The core devs are the ones who
refused to raise the 1mb for years.  BU is attempting to push for bigger blocks.

Where are you getting this misinformation from?

Ask these currupt BU miners and Vermin why they don't want to increase capacity.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62170e/beyond_ln_if_all_bitcoin_transactions_were/

So if we're going to need bigger blocks anyway... and 2-4mb is really no big deal...
and not having an upgrade for years is causing problems... then why the hell
should we be waiting any longer to upgrade?

Are we really going to wait another year for the core devs to 'allow' us to
upgrade?  Or for the miners to reach consensus?

Even if you're a small blocker or believe we should be scaling slowly,
I mean when is enough enough?  Do we have to get overtaken by ethereum
before people wake up?  What's it going to take ?