Topic: First Bitcoin Lightning Network Transaction Tested Successfully - page 2. (Read 1973 times)

"fake misinformation and propaganda" is kind of problematic, considering what you're trying to push here lol

What Franky is, of course, failing to point out is that the total BTC monetary base would still need the positioning of the divisional point. So don't worry 1 BTC holders, Franky's magic math isn't going to put you into the Franky Mugabe 1000 BTC club overnight, lol

LOL you are failing. its you that doesnt understand. there is no division at code level.
at code level if bitcoin was to change to match LN its not dividing bitcoin, its increasing the units.
at code level it has always been 1sat UP not 1btc DOWN

again
changing the units of measure
2100000000000000 into
2100000000000000000 units which also changes when new coins stop being created. (from the year 2141 to the year 2181)

which makes the units less rare as now there are 1000 times more units to share.
but again i say lets hope we never have to debate such a proposal and only have to argue who 'wins' when rounding out return a real satoshi count

have a nice day in your bubble world of fake misinformation and propaganda

You can't simultaneously argue that you have a "code mindset", and also that you don't understand division. Sorry Franky, go home, this is just terrible stuff

lightning CAN be used for blackmail.. even people think that right now mining pools demand for txfee is blackmail. yet you call it a "free market" which you have openly said hubs/pools can choose to demand any fee they like 'because of the freemarket'

as for the units of measure, go read some code. please. as it seems even you have forgot/never knew the real unit of measure at code level,

but lets hope we never as a community have a proposal that bitcoins consensus rules need to change the units of measure to match LN. and only have to debate LN's rounding, and who the rounding is in favour of.

i feel you only see what the GUI and human brain calculates it to after the fact.
you seem to be, (using another example) a 'bitcoin averages 1block every 10minutes' (GUI mindset) kind of guy,
where as im more of a 2016 blocks every ~fortnight kind of guy (code level mindset and then flip it to a more fitting laymens understanding)

the uptopian concept is, to lock funds in you have to put funds into a bitcoin onchain tx to the multisig.
you then play around with the hubs 'millisats'
at the end a bitcoin onchain transaction including a bitcoin fee gets put on the bitcoin network to unlock funds.
EG
onchain:
user (0.04) -> hub (0.0399) (0.0001 on chain fee)

offchain (lets say offchain fee was 1sat(1000milisat)
user(3990000000) starbucks(0)
user(3499999000) starbucks(499999000) (user pays 0.005btc((500000000ms)=$3) to starbucks) (LN has 2sat 1 from starbuck 1 from user)
user(2999998000) starbucks(999998000) (user pays 0.005btc((500000000ms)=$3) to starbucks) (LN has 4sat 1 from starbuck 1 from user)
user(2499997000) starbucks(1499997000) (user pays 0.005btc((500000000ms)=$3) to starbucks) (LN has 6sat 1 from starbuck 1 from user)
user(1999996000) starbucks(1999996000) (user pays 0.005btc((500000000ms)=$3) to starbucks) (LN has 8sat 1 from starbuck 1 from user)
user(1499995000) starbucks(2499995000) (user pays 0.005btc((500000000ms)=$3) to starbucks) (LN has 10sat 1 from starbuck 1 from user)

so the user has paid 5sats to do 5 LN transactions
now lets settle

hub (0.04) -> the user (0.01489995) (0.0001 on chain fee)
hub (0.04) -> starbuck (0.02499995)
hub (0.04) -> LNs host (0.00000010)

so LN's host gets 10sats thanks to 5 offchain tx of 2 users at 1sat rate
and bitcoin miners gets 20000 sats thanks to 2 tx lock in and settle

Oh that's fascinating Franky, do tell us more

bullcrap
seems you dont understand bitcoin at code level. because at code level there is no 21million bitcoin cap.
at code level the units of measure are not bitcoins but satoshi

its not bitcoin measured down. but satoshi measured up
where each block reward is not producing 12.5btc. but instead
1250000000 units
which halves every ~4 years

which calculates as 2100000000000000 unit cap by the year 2140.

by adding more units (decimals at the GUI front end) makes the amount of units per blockreward change from
1250000000 units to
1250000000000 units

which calculates as the year bitcoin stops producing units change from 2141 to 2181 and produce
2100000000000000000 units instead of
2100000000000000 units

but ofcourse thats if blockstream wanted to mess around with bitcoins 'unit of measure' to match the lightning unit of measure, instead of rounding the lightning unit of measure when closing the channel.

i can see future 'debates' of people arguing who 'benefits' from the rounding to fit bitcoins unit of measure. but i hope we never have to debate
changing bitcoins unit of measure to match lightning. otherwise that is SCREWING bitcoins rarity.

locking funds into multisig is the same as putting funds into a 'managed' account where it requires duel signatures to settle funds movements.

LN can be useful for people that want to raid faucets for a few weeks to receive a few units without 'spamming' bitcoins blockchain. but
LN due to it being 'managed' by some entity should not be trusted as the 'forever solution' where people lock funds in forever.
LN due to it being 'managed' opens up new weaknesses. such as blackmail eg (hub:"we will not sign a tx unless you pay 1btc fee to get funds back"
similar comparisons can be made to pools now, not accepting transactions into a block unless you pay over 0.0001 btc

so its not only who benefits from the 'rounding' but also the corruption of changing/demanding more fee per tx just to close a channel to get funds out. ending up as costing the user more to settle blackmail style or forced to stay in the channel out of fear of losing more then they would getting out.

Ah, so we ditch the tx's that bring in the most fees? >$100 ^hmmmm^ Does that sound like a wise move, for a technology that would be funded in future only by the miners fees? Can you still trace all of these {small}tx's running through the hubs? < Transparency >? -- Bitcoin is currently a open public network, would the tx's that were done on the LN hubs, be private or still accessible to the public or functioning like a mixer service?

It looks like it works something similar to services like Xapo, where all internal/off-chain tx's are private and cheap, and then when you go on-chain, normal fees are applicable. Does these hubs function in the same way?

Who hosts these hubs?  



 

So, do you "understand" the LN system, or are you just speculating? It can't be both, can it? Let us all know which it is before you carry on.


And which participant in the Bitcoin network holds the majority of the free capital in Bitcoin? Don't tell me you think it's the banks?


It's obvious that having just one Lightning Hub would maximise processing efficiency. Guess what that would do to the fees the Hub charges?

When you bear in mind that:

• Users will always choose the cheapest routing option
• The barrier to entry for competing Hubs couldn't be any lower

...then a monopoly Hub simply couldn't take control, because Hubs are in free market competition. Banks are not in free-market competition. Your point is invalid.

That is the ideal way to use it, yes. But then again comes the efficiency argument. It would be more efficient to have fewer but larger hubs that have more open channels to make the routing of transactions fewer and easier for sending coins from point A to point B. We as humans would tend to go for the more efficient and I believe people will set up large payment hubs for efficiency's sake and for sure even have a model for profit behind it. It is like being a bank in the Bitcoin network.


I just mentioned that as an example of what kind of institution in the real world would make a good payment hub. I did not mean that they will actually become payment hubs. I am just making a point.


It is exactly what I have in mind. It will be like there will be a rebirth of the Medici clan in the Bitcoin network. What I am saying is all speculatory, please take it lightly.

All bitcoin txs that exceed a certain monetary value, such as 100 USD for example, will be transacted
on the bitcoin blockchain still. For all bitcoin txs below that value, the LN would, in theory, allow instant
confirmation and ability to process 1000's of txs per second. When on the LN, at some point in time, possibly
every few hours, or possibly once per day, the LN will "settle" all the prior "unsettled" LN txs, by a "master tx"
pushed to the bitcoin blockchain, thus inscribing and securing all those LN txs with the Bitcoin PoW blockchain.
This "master tx" will contain a fee for the miners. Maybe multiple "master txs" a day, as well, IDK.

The whole point is to get 1000s of txs within a single tx, thus facilitating the ability for bitcoin use in all daily life.
Instead of cramming more txs within a single block, in theory, we are cramming more txs within a single tx.

This is my understanding.

A stupid question : If the LN is supposed to alleviate the load from the Blockchain, by having less transaction on the Blockchain, would these transaction still generate miners fees? Where are the fees going?

We all hope that in the future these fees will replace the block rewards, but if we implement we are going to reach a point, where it would not be profitable for miners to continue mining, because the fees and the block rewards are too low.

Are these hubs still doing on-chain tx's and who is getting these fees? Is this like Xapo, where the host gets the fees, and only once tx's goes over to the Blockchain, then miners fees are generated.

I apologize in advance for the stupid question, but I do not grasp the whole concept yet. ^hmmmm^

Ah. I thought you meant "free btc" in association with franky's reference to "milisats".
Meaning that those bitcoins are illusionary.



When you are saying "free" bitcoins, you are really referring whether that hub operator has a
large (100s of btc) or a little (1 btc) amount of bitcoins locked in that specific hub for the escrow handoffs.

What you are saying about "larger hubs" is true in theory, but it is important to remember that systems like LN
are not meant for individual txs over a value of 50 to 100 USD or so, those should still remain on bitcoin blockchain.
LN allows for rapid and numerous micro txs that will allow Bitcoin to scale for small daily purchases, while still allowing
the underlying blockchain system to remain resistant to numerous pitfalls, attacks, regulations, and legal or governmental
enemies. In theory, the majority of LN channels should be opened and immediately closed since most tx will involve simple
purchases that don't need complex arbitration, such as a coffee, petrol, simple food shopping, and etc.

Also, if you have a LN hub (or multiple ones) and you are locking 100s of btc within it, that is potentially very
risky and it would be wiser to have many hubs with low amounts of btc locked within. Large hubs with large amount of btc,
which may have become "centralized" over time are a major point of failure. They will be prone to attack either for their btc or
outright ddosed to hurt that "large centralized" operator. IMO LN hubs or other types of "second layer bitcoin transaction system"
should be small to spread the risk over the whole LN network. Just like Bitcoin node operators.

If in the future banks become the major and largest LN hub operators, they will need to own large amounts of bitcoin.
Possibly even more than they can afford to purchase and attempt to make a profit from. It would be more reasonable if
everyone who has 10 btc or less to start up a hub, lock 2 btc into it and make a small fee here and there like an interest account.
When the LN hubs system is done and working properly and as "envisioned", bank "capital" will not be needed, just any bitcoin holder.
If banks are willing to purchase such large amount of btc, then they should also start exchanging and holding them within their
own "trusted" and government insured second layer systems (ex: like the coinbase's private ledger), and if they started doing that,
they won't need to be a LN hub, since Bitcoin would then be a legal form of tender throughout world financial systems.

Good news. I hope to see this start to develop more and I hope to hear more news about it sooner rather than later. If this is seen by the market as a favourable event and it means we might be seeing the lightning network rolling out sooner, then I am quite ready to see this get tested more, and I want to see what their progress is.

First. I did not mean free as in free without paying for it. When I said "free" it means the payment hub is liquid so that it can be used by the users who decide to open a channel to that hub.

Second. That is just a speculation on what I think could happen. A small payment hub can only handle a smaller number if open channels because it has smaller "free" Bitcoins, while a larger one can handle more channels and is therefore more efficient because it can route more transactions from point A to point B. So users would then tend to go for larger hubs. So the result of this would be fewer larger hubs in operation.

So in modern society today, what institution has the most liquidity or "free capital". Banks.

First, there is no "free btc". Are you thinking the "free btc" will exceed the 21 million coin limit?
Bitcoin exists past eight decimal places right now, ex: 0.0000,0000,0000,0001,
it is just that the current protocol only needs to go to 0.0000,0001 (aka 1 satoshi).
We can go below 1 satoshi if needed to facilitate "micro fees" for "micro txs".

Second, please explain in detail why centralization will occur due to micro fee accumulation,
whether prior to or after the LN settlement action back onto the bitcoin blockchain.
If banks run LN hubs in the future, why would they have "free btc" or "free capital"?

Please elaborate, I do not understand.

In my reading and googling about the Lightning Network, I believe franky1 and I have the same understanding of the system. Now this is how it will usually go when payment hubs are set up, it will encourage centralization gravitating towards the larger ones to have more efficiency since they will have more "free BTC" and open channels. In other words the Lightning Network system will tend to have as minimum number of hubs possible with these larger hubs containing larger amounts of free BTC to maintain more channels. In the real world the institution that holds a lot of free capital are the banks. So in a way banks could be the perfect candidate to run payment hubs.  

That's right, i mean the zero confirmation will be a safe way....  so that's will giving a good impact totally for implementing the bitcoin into the real or offline merchant. especially if you're wanna for buying a cup of coffee with bitcoin.

is the case. deposit real bitcoin into a multisig requiring dual signatures. just like a bank. without their permission you cant withdraw.


then play around with IOU "millisats" which are not bitcoin. obviously due to the 3 extra decimals,
where those funds are then only 'representing' real bitcoins, under the pretence they convert back when settling and rounding down,

as the other person said. all thats left is in a few years people dont deposit into a dual signature address anymore, but a single signature address wholely owned by the hub. "and....... its gone"

If it was what WindFURY meant, then the Hub controls your money. Not the case. That's all I was saying.

Not sure how you managed to interpret it your meandering way. Not that interested in the "explanation" tbh