Topic: Fundamental problem: Lightning Network leads to centralization and less security (Read 3795 times)

The proposal has essentially no redeeming qualities, no need to throw mud.

it's contentious and ethically dubious
It's technically incompetent and poorly thought out
it's downright dangerous to bitcoin as we know it

The fact that some anon-troll posted it is just icing on the cake.

It's always good to know details about a person with technical proposals. Much easier to throw mud. Plus you can start discussing the person instead of the proposal.

Honestly I think core is being smart not to say anything. There is very little they could say that wouldn't be taken the wrong way and used as fuel.

I don't believe they are willing to try this.

OK, that seems comforting. Wouldn't a litecoin dev running a github fork have an account on bitcointalk though? Also, who's to say that is the same person?

We haven't heard from Core so we don't know their stance. If there is any forward movement on this, I don't think "users and node operators" will be the people who will write the code lol.  I think it's an understatement that this one of the most controversial proposals in the past several years.

Shaolinfry appears to be a Litecoin dev, so that's innocuous enough:  https://github.com/shaolinfry/litecoin

It's just the way you phrased it, as if Core had any role to play at all in the decision.  Their credibility isn't on the line if they aren't involved.  Core themselves seem to be either impartial or undecided on the whole idea.  No one in Core has made any response at all to it that I can see, so they aren't "going through with" anything.  This is all users and node operators looking to play hardball to break the deadlock.

I didn't say that it's Core's idea. It was posted from a brand new account with no post history, so obviously that person seeks to remain somewhat anonymous. Theymos posted a response fairly quickly. that he believes UASF is a good idea.

I'm not going to draw any conclusions, but this looks fishy to me.

Just to pick up on a technicality, where is the source that confirms this UASF was indeed Core's idea?  As far as I could see in the thread, it was just some community members on this forum (albeit prominent ones like the admins).  To the best of my knowledge, no developers have commented on it yet, unless they're posting under a username I wasn't aware is one of the devs.

Not if a change is user-driven.

You're treading into very dangerous and contentious territory here... Trying to do a soft fork behind the miners' backs is sure to cause an uproar. I mean, if you're worried about a hard fork, this would be hundreds of times worse.

If core goes through with this user-driven soft fork, I think it will be the final end of their credibility, and thus they will be done setting the roadmap for bitcoin. Gavin and Garzik would have to pick up where they left off, and we'd all be registering at a new forum.

If this gets bad enough, at some point Satoshi might even come back and bitch-slap the shit out of you fools...

It's not about a certain person/pool. The criteria for relaying or not relaying a new blocks should be the BIP9 support flag.

Let's do it. Antminer can get bricked IMO

More than 50% of the nodes can use segwit transactions. Nearly 100% of the nodes are segwit compatible.


No. There is no need to allow 3-4 hostile pool owners to block all further development of the system. As a first step the nodes could no longer relay blocks of the hostile pool owners. In the second step it is possible to head for an user activated soft fork.

Sorry, "the game" is already lost for you and Core as well. Segwit requires 95% consensus by miners and nodes and therefore won't happen. No need to move any goalposts. No need to split hairs about who supports what - it's over and neither Segwit nor BU will be adopted. However, it's the first time a Core release has been soundly ignored. For some reason they have become more shrill, rather than more humble.




Now you're just getting ridiculous, my friend - can you not see that there is a distinction between bitcoin users and bitcoin node operators?

Paying for and running a server 24/7 that processes financial tranasactions isn't for everyone. Can you at least agree with that?

Segwit compatible nodes are 51% of the network. You didn't ask about miners, you stated that a majority of users had rejected it.


If you really think moving the goalposts is how to win the game, you must be more stupid than the audience you believe you can fool



They're all Bitcoin nodes, because they have to behave like Bitcoin nodes to participate in the network, by definition. Anything that doesn't observe the rules is rejected, you're arguing non-pertinent semantics, not technical details


More concerned that you believe using the Bitcoin software "isn't for everyone". There are no security implications, it only strengthens the network. Stop using unqualified statements to discourage people to run a node, it's a highly irresponsible falsehood

Nice try, miner support for Segwit is 25.6%  Keep on wishing for that 101% and keep on ignoring the giant mempool and borderline-unusable-for-normal-transactions bitcoin network.

First of all, don't put words in my mouth. If I'm a critic of Core/Segwit/LN, that doesn't automatically make me a BU/Hard Fork fanboi. BTW the Chinese introduced a synthetic fork proposal that was completely ignored here on this echo-chamber forum. Study, learn, and think for yourself.

Second, if you're claiming 6000 bitcoin nodes then you're stretching a bit, and you're including the 700+ Unlimited nodes, LOL. I've heard anectodally that the total number of bitcoin nodes was at 20k at one point, but fell as the blockchain size increased dramatically.  Do you think that 6000 LN nodes would make the network secure and allow payments to be process at the claimed rates?


"Anyone can swap the engine in their Honda Civic".
"Anyone can become an astronaut"

I find it frightening that you're proposing that random fools should run a node in this secure network. Imagine the security implications...

If you check who wrote the article, he is a big blocker. Then of course his opinions will be biased against Segwit and the Lightning Network. He is more willing to take the risks of a hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited than take a safer path in Segwit. What does that tell you about him? This is more politics than a technical argument.

Segwit compatible nodes are 51% of the network. And rising every day. If that's the majority of users rejecting it, I don't know what would convince you. 101% segwit nodes, maybe?


Bitcoin nodes are ~ 6000. And rising every day. You're in favour of changes that endanger that trend.


Which part of "anyone can start a p2p Lightning node" don't you understand?

I stand corrected about Blockstream's LN implementation. Is it fair to say that their LN code is the most popular version given that they are a $75 million corporation and the prime mover for the technology?

LN could be a threat to bitcoin in that the main cheerleaders for it are also blocking bitcoin from working properly. If LN worked and solved all of the problems, I'd be happy. As I said before, I doubt LN will ever see widespread use, and altcoins will simply take more and more market share until if/when core wakes up and smells the coffee.  Isn't it obvious that the majority isn't interested in LN based on the massive resistance to Segwit? LN will likely go the way of Segwit - another over-complicated dorky solution that never got off the ground...


"Anyone" can run a bitcoin node as well, but only ~5000 do... You're forgetting that people need to be tech-savvy and security-conscious, which eliminates 99.9% of the population off the bat. Also they need to be prepared to spend money on hosting and spend time adminstering the node.


Finally, I don't want to open a payment channel with anyone, I just want to pay them and get paid by them, and that technology exists today and is(was) working until recently. As others have said, with LN we could well be headed toward using the mega-corporate channels with the corporations data mining and spying. All sounds very familiar to me...

Yes.

Routing through others connected to your LN node is part of what makes Lightning attractive, a high quality of privacy can be established that way (better than on-chain Bitcoin, only the parties directly connected to you are aware of your transactions, unlike when published on the public blockchain)

They don't have to be permanently online necessarily, but it's ideal if they are. There is at least one way to exploit channels to steal from others when one party goes offline, but not if they stay online. This is a significant flaw IMO, but it's not impossible that a p2p solution could be found for this also (a 3rd party solution has been devised). It's all still a work in progress.

I need one more thing to be clarified.
Alice and Bob opened a LN channel between them. So did Carol and Dan.
Know i was under the impression that Alice could not send funds to Dan, since the two channels are not connected. Just because they all use LN doesn't mean that they are connected or is this assumption wrong?
But if for example Bob and Carol would also have an open channel, then this would link the two channels (A-B and C-D), so that Alice could finally send funds to Bob.
Alice would send funds through Bob and then Carol to Dan. As i heard they all would have to be online to do this. Is this correct?