Fundamental problem: Lightning Network leads to centralization and less security - page 3.

MadGamer

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 1031

Quote from: Boussac on February 26, 2017, 05:07:37 AM

The LN protocol can only lead to centralization of the LN network.
If we find it too centralized, we can use another network based on another protocol, such as Tumblebit, which also provides payment hubs and payment channels.

In any protocol stack, there are layers that are more centralized than others. Decentralization is not a state, it's a process.

I'm almost sure that both TumbleBit and Lightning network are two different and separated things even though they both use payment channels. LN is meant to make transactions faster while TumbleBit is something supposed to make bitcoin transaction more anonymous, think of it as a mixer or Darkwallet that was never released.

calkob

hero member

Activity: 1106

Merit: 521

Quote from: Technologov on February 25, 2017, 04:44:56 AM

Fundamental problem: Lightning Network leads to centralization and less security

http://www.wallstreettechnologist.com/2016/10/03/lightning-network-will-it-save-bitcoin-or-break-it/

As far as i believe their are at least 3 different projects working on a form of lighting, which means users will have a choice as to which one to use. Even Kim dotcom is creating Bitcache which is along the lines of some sort of Lightning network. If this is the case then it wont be centralised as you have stated.

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

Quote from: Carlton Banks on February 28, 2017, 05:12:56 PM

Quote from: classicsucks on February 28, 2017, 03:32:02 PM

Logical fail - "If I build a sturdy house, anything I build on top of it will be sturdy".

Analogy fail - computer networks aren't like a horse

To wit: the multiple protocols operating on top of the TCP/IP network that you used to post your incorrect statement to this website

Hold your horses. The analogy works, the Bitcoin network is not a protocol, and can't easily be built on top of in a way that is guaranteed to be secure. Computer networks are very much like houses with a foundation layer and subsequent layers built on top of it.

The TCP/IP protocol and network don't offer security (and it's not even an efficient protocol BTW). Now that IS a bad analogy. If you mean TLS, maybe.

And are you stalking my post history?

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: classicsucks on February 28, 2017, 03:32:02 PM

Logical fail - "If I build a sturdy house, anything I build on top of it will be sturdy".

Analogy fail - computer networks aren't like a horse

To wit: the multiple protocols operating on top of the TCP/IP network that you used to post your incorrect statement to this website

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

Quote from: Yogafan00000 on February 25, 2017, 10:40:24 AM

Quote from: Technologov on February 25, 2017, 04:44:56 AM

Fundamental problem: Lightning Network leads to centralization and less security

http://www.wallstreettechnologist.com/2016/10/03/lightning-network-will-it-save-bitcoin-or-break-it/

Since LN is supposed to be a payment layer on top of the Bitcoin network, LN has no effect whatsoever on Bitcoin security, centralization, or fungibility.

Logical fail - "If I build a sturdy house, anything I build on top of it will be sturdy".

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1963

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

If I understand this correctly, most of these transactions will not be public? The payment hubs will process the tx's and then show the bundled result of that on the Blockchain? Who do you contact if something went wrong with your tx's and are these entities not a single point of failure, when they come under attack?

Many of us still need these types of questions answered, before we will switch. We will rely on miners fees in future, and we are uncertain if this will diminished our income, if this is implemented. ^hmmmmmm^

Hydrogen

legendary

Activity: 2562

Merit: 1441

There is a fundamental relationship between speed and security.

Fast encrypted WIFI is always less secure than WIFI utilizing slower & more secure encryption.

The same paradigm applies to bitcoin transactions where you can have greater speed, but only at the expense of reduced security.

Spamming unconfirmed transactions could be a deliberate scheme to herd bitcoin users towards an uncertain future where they demand greater speed and sacrifice their security to obtain it.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3934

Merit: 3190

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: Yogafan00000 on February 25, 2017, 10:40:24 AM

Since LN is supposed to be a payment layer on top of the Bitcoin network, LN has no effect whatsoever on Bitcoin security, centralization, or fungibility.

That's certainly the sales pitch, the theory and the hope, but in practice, it's honestly too early to tell for sure. There are questions around things like the expiration of a timelock if the transaction takes too long to confirm when attempting settling, which opens up the potential to counterparty theft. Also considerations of how an infinite number of transactions back and forth without a fee might have a bearing on miner revenues over time as the block reward diminishes. We also want to be certain that "layer 0" is still economically viable for the average person and that they aren't forced to transact off-chain due to excessive costs. In something as complex and uncertain as LN, there are bound to be wide ranging implications. That's not to say we shouldn't explore such potential, of course. The benefits are absolutely worth it. But at the same time, we shouldn't be too dismissive when people raise issues like this.

ImHash

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 506

Quote from: Boussac on February 26, 2017, 05:07:37 AM

This.

Quote from: Yogafan00000 on February 25, 2017, 10:40:24 AM

Since LN is supposed to be a payment layer on top of the Bitcoin network, LN has no effect whatsoever on Bitcoin security, centralization, or fungibility.

The LN protocol can only lead to centralization of the LN network.
If we find it too centralized, we can use another network based on another protocol, such as Tumblebit, which also provides payment hubs and payment channels.

In any protocol stack, there are layers that are more centralized than others. Decentralization is not a state, it's a process.

Wrong, centralization is placement of process occurring and decentralization is making it mobile or remote and scattered, who will run and maintain LN?

Boussac

legendary

Activity: 1221

Merit: 1025

e-ducat.fr

This.

Quote from: Yogafan00000 on February 25, 2017, 10:40:24 AM

Since LN is supposed to be a payment layer on top of the Bitcoin network, LN has no effect whatsoever on Bitcoin security, centralization, or fungibility.

The LN protocol can only lead to centralization of the LN network.
If we find it too centralized, we can use another network based on another protocol, such as Tumblebit, which also provides payment hubs and payment channels.

In any protocol stack, there are layers that are more centralized than others. Decentralization is not a state, it's a process.

Yogafan00000

sr. member

Activity: 314

Merit: 251

Quote from: Technologov on February 25, 2017, 04:44:56 AM

Fundamental problem: Lightning Network leads to centralization and less security

http://www.wallstreettechnologist.com/2016/10/03/lightning-network-will-it-save-bitcoin-or-break-it/

Since LN is supposed to be a payment layer on top of the Bitcoin network, LN has no effect whatsoever on Bitcoin security, centralization, or fungibility.

Technologov

full member

Activity: 203

Merit: 100

Fundamental problem: Lightning Network leads to centralization and less security

http://www.wallstreettechnologist.com/2016/10/03/lightning-network-will-it-save-bitcoin-or-break-it/

Topic: Fundamental problem: Lightning Network leads to centralization and less security - page 3. (Read 3809 times)