Topic: Fundamental problem: Lightning Network leads to centralization and less security - page 2. (Read 3811 times)

There can't be a proof because this theory is wrong. segwit allows more transactions per block than the current system.

Lightning is peer to peer in essence. That means there is no hub/node distinction, everyone is a node, anyone can start a node.

Sure, some nodes will be more popular than others, but everyone can decide for themselves whether to use a cheap high volume channel (suitable when you don't care about privacy), or a more expensive low volume channel (suitable for privacy sensitive payments), or anything in between as you choose.

The main point is that because Lightning is p2p, it's a platform for a diversity of needs. Choose your own compromise/trade-off.

That is a good point. I tend to have a picture in my mind where LN will end up controlled by a few hubs. Opening a payment channel between two parties is already possible with Bitcoin as far as i know.
The more interesting part is that all participants of a channel can interact. So everybody using Amazon or Apple would be potentially connected. I would expect Amazon and Apple to run there own Hubs. Which would them give certainly a lot of power and they might even decide to charge a fee. I also can not see how google is missing out on collecting a huge amount of data running own Hubs. Wouldn't that be a further compromise to privacy?

There are multiple implementations of LN in ongoing development, 5 the last time I checked. Blockstream are only 1 of that 5.

You cannot qualify your statement that 5+ organisations developing their own form of Lightning protocol is a risk to Bitcoin.

The truth is the opposite: healthy competition in LN implementations can only help to improve Bitcoin's transaction capacity by orders of magnitude higher than any workable blocksize increase ever could, and provide strength in diversity should one of the many designs develops a problem.

Some are saying that Blockstream is deliberately keeping the blocksize small to force people onto LN. I haven't seen proof of this theory, but they are the primary developers of LN, and they've received $75 million based on their assertion that people will need to use LN. If it's true, it would be a major risk for bitcoin.

You were warned that you were now on my shitlist and that you would now be singularised for the brunt of my wrath because you insist on constantly being a pernicious dick.  I'm afraid you've brought this on yourself.  People were trying to discuss technical points before you stormed in to go for the throat.



You jumping to the wrong conclusion isn't clarity.  It might look a bit clearer if bias wasn't clouding your vision.



You insulted someone because you misunderstood something.  You literally just attacked d5000's character and intelligence for no reason.  So yes, there's something wrong with the content of what you said.  There's evident justification for attacking your character.  You are the troll.

Back to the topic:


One would hope that the way LN is implemented would mean that it's not an either/or style choice.  It should just be another part of Bitcoin.  An option to open a channel, send your transactions back and forth without any delays, and then settle when you're done.  It's also best to not think of LN as a "service provider" as such.  There may well be service providers that utilise LN and those services would obviously be fairly centralised, but LN itself is closer to a protocol and should hopefully remain as neutral and impartial as Bitcoin's existing protocol.  But we need to be careful how it's implemented to ensure that happens.

Just like the rest of your ilk, you're still obsessed with individuals (mostly me) and personalities, incapable of arguing straightly or honestly about technical points.


You're wrong, that little exchange between d5000 and Boussac was not clear at all. I provided clarity.


Is there something wrong with the content of what I said? There is not, which is why, ironically, you can only attack my character. Who's the real troll

Either you're trolling again, Carlton, or your bias is now so strong that you're selectively quoting out of context without even realising it.  Stop jumping down someone's throat over your own failure at reading comprehension.  Let's try that quote you replied to again without the twisted bias on your part:



That's how anyone with an open mind will be reading d5000's reply.  But keep being the mindless, rabid attack dog that you are, Carlton, frenzied at the slightest misunderstanding.  It continues to do nothing for your credibility.

No it isn't


Please either bring articulable knowledge to the discussion about the topic, or do us all a favour and be quiet. You're not backing your statement up with any facts, and you're saying things that aren't true

If we find LN to centralized, then we could change to another service provider. At least in theory. First of there need to be other services we could use and secondly they should be on more or less on the same level. If there are alternatives but they are not sophisticated enough, then they are no help.
We can often see that we end up with two or three market leaders. For credit cards it Visa, MasterCard and American Express. How about smartphone OS? We only use Apple or Android.
I don't see more then three big 2nd layer solutions. What if they all centralize? Once they are established it'll be even hard for a good product to enter the market. Why? I think it will be the network effect. If you have all the users they will be unhappy but still stay with you. Look at Facebook. There are alternatives, but nobody uses them. Why? Because all my friends are at FB.
If all my merchants and friends use LN then i will not switch to an alternative where i can not pay them, because they all just use LN.

And yes, this might cause just a little drawback in Bitcoin adoption. If people have to choose it's always a tiny bit harder then only having one option and deciding to join. But right now we have a whole bunch of Wallets to chose from and it is not stopping people from using Bitcoin. Also i don't think people will chose because of the technical underlining or security. They will chose depending on what they friends use, the costs and maybe some convenient features, which tend to be less safe. They won't care about centralization.

That is true, but there is a possible drawback: It wouldn't help adoption if users must choose between different payment methods, all with different potential security models. The on-chain mechanism is still fairly easy to understand, LN adds a lot of complexity - which can be hidden, obviously, but the users must understand the underlying ideas at least a bit to be able to calculate risks. The more methods that are competing, the higher the barrier to enter the system for new users.

That doesn't mean I only would approve on-chain methods. For me, (pegged) sidechains are the most interesting way to scale because the on-blockchain transaction method is only slightly modified and the concept is easy to understand, and so are the risks (51% attack on weak sidechains). LN in my opinion is more a kind of prepaid card replacement for very small micropayments - I would use it this way even if it lead to more centralization, as it would be still better than a fully centralized third-party-service.

You have little idea how Lightning works, and are incapable of either understanding or even reading very simplistic explanations to aid your broken understanding. Please stop wasting our time until you can demonstrate you are willing to learn

I was just trying to understand BillyBobZorton point/logic. He suggested a scenario where the 2nd layer crumbles and the transaction have to be on the Bitcoin block chain.
Your point a) shows that you didn't read or understand my post.
and your point b) isn't helpful, as you only claim that i'm wrong without saying where.
Feel free to use the ignore button if i waste your time. Just like everybody else can do who feels the same. In the meantime i will try to have an productive discussion. I'm always glad to learn something new or be corrected, but expect that this happens in a civilized and helpful manner.

Can't you read? I've answered this already, you're a time-waster

Tell me exactly where i'm wrong.
Let's assume LN makes 1000 transactions, where only the opening and closing need to be on chain. If LN fails and the transaction still need to be done, then they will happen on chain. This means 1000 more transactions on chain. I don't know if Bitcoin can handle that, but with bigger blocks i see a better chance.

None of that makes any sense, because:

a) Lightning transactions aggregate the net amount of multiple Bitcoin transactions, on-chain settlement will never be 1:1 offchain:onchain, your scenario is exagerrated to the point of being ridiculous

b) You provided zero reasoning, just an entire paragraph of false assertions

You are saying, that if LN fails all the transactions will have to happen on the Bitcoin block chain. And if this happens the blockchain needs to be decentralized, which we can assure with small blocks.
Maybe i got you wrong, but i see a problem here. LN is supposed to carry a lot of the transaction and if it fails and all the LN transactions have to be done on chain, then we will have more transactions then Bitcoin can handle. To me it seems like big blocks would help here.
It sounds like with small blocks we would stay decentralized but Bitcoin might fall apart due to the overwhelming number of transactions.
Or with big blocks we might handle the number of transactions, but risk to be centralized.
To be fair i have to add that there is also no guarantee that Bitcoin using big block could handle all LN transactions, just as there is no guarantee that LN will not end up centralized.   

The whole idea of second layers and in this case lightning network on top of bitcoin, is to guarantee that if the second layer  crumbles, the sturdy base (core of the network protocol) will remain decentralized. This is achieved by not having big blocks.

Somebody correct me if i'm wrong, but LN does not effect Bitcoin directly. Nobody is forced to use LN. Even with LN we can all just use Bitcoin. So LN is not a risk to Bitcoin.
But what would be bad is to neglect the development of Bitcoin, because there is LN. Also People might get bullied by peer pressure to use LN or otherwise you will not be able to use a certain service. A possible reason would be that the service provider doesn't want to wait to long for confirmation.
Once everybody uses LN we will not only see centralization but also have a hard time to switch to another second layer service. So i understand some concerns people have with LN, but as usual it will depend on how we use the technology and in which direction the developers will further develop it (if enough people would care the users would have some influence here).

from the article:

Right now, I believe that altcoins are a viable alternative to solutions like Lightning, which are several years away. Bitcoin devs even say, "if you don't like the bitcoin fees, use something else". And in fact, that is what many people are doing. Using altcoins while exchanging to bitcoin also creates some anonimity. Services like Shapeshift are taking off, exchanges are supporting hundreds of alt cryptocurrencies, and their market caps are skyrocketing. Money is pouring into the alts as bitcoin becomes less and less useful, and the core devs sit there muttering about quadratic hashing with their thumbs up their asses...

I believe that layers built on top of bitcoin won't be adopted on a large scale.