Topic: Great News For Bitcoin! Lightening Network First Payment Was Successful! - page 3. (Read 693 times)

This is the innovation that i have been waiting for some time. This will reduce all that back log of transactions and the fee i seen on there of zero wont be long lasting i think. The reason i say that is because if we have 0 fees what will stop people from spamming transactions of letfs say 25 cents just because there is no transaction fees.

Oh i see, LN isn't implemented yet in other wallet? I want to send 10k satoshi with 0 fee
Good news, of course

From what I have heard, there are tons of Lightning Network Nodes already. I think there are close to or possible over 1,000 now around thw world. I really hope it works out because fees need to go lower.

I just tried sending Bitcoin since fees are down, but they are still too high and I don't want to spend that much percentage just to send money. Hope they go down really soon when LN is more popular in 2018.

It really needs to get implemented right now, the fees are pretty high, they are not as high as they were before.. but they are still high compared to what they were a month ago.

---

When do you think that it is going to be on the main blockchain? It has been on development for more than months right now, and the dev's have changed a lot of times, how do we know if this is going to be a good change?

---

I dont know, but it was just a bitreffil payment and i do not trust in that at all.

We'll see soon.

So far, the network of lightning - this is the most acceptable solution to the problem of eliminating bitcoins and generally a crisis of confidence in bitcoin. However, it's bad that this project does not come from the bitcoin development team. In addition, for mass implementation of lightning network, it is necessary to adapt wallets to it, and this takes time.

We are trying to predict the future of the bitcoin and the lightning network. But the reality will become clear within a month.
Congratulations on the new year 2018!

People shouting about alt migration need to look beyond the end of their noses. As users the people who are around right now don't count for anything. The ones that do count are the tens and hundreds of millions to come in the future. They're the ones who might have fully functioning and smoothed out lightning networks to waltz straight into.

In the meantime the people here who went all in on Rapecoin because it has lower fees will be deservedly lying groaning at the side of the highway of history.

Core can be penises. They also have proper vision that extends beyond the next alt pump. That's why they're still at the tip of the spear and that's why they're resisting the people offering instant cures that could fuck everything up in the near future.

Yes have a good one and bonk/drink the new year in as is the tradition

People said the exact same thing about SegWit yet here we are. You won't see wide usage of SegWit or LN until 2021 at the absolute earliest. Forget crypto for tonight guys happy new year!

I can’t wait to watch the great blockchain prize fight that’s going to happen between Ripple and Lightning networks.

Ripple uses blockchain technology, has its own token (XRP) and can be used to verify any type of transfer including existing banking transfers. Ripple has the support of big banking (like American Express, RBC, Westpac and The Bank of Tokyo) and can speed up existing transfer methods to keep current banking in power.

Lightning does not have its own blockchain technology but instead is a scripting language (special run-time environment that automates the execution of tasks), it requires the bitcoin blockchain (or some other blockchain) to survive but it does not use a blockchain for transactions. It only uses a blockchain for final proofing. Because of that is does not have its own token. It also does not have the support of current banking systems and has no large corporate sponsors with a vested interest in making it work. The major plus of lightning is if bitcoin fails or falters with the click of a keyboard it can use some other blockchain as its “enforcement” system. The downside is that major banking will likely never accept it a a payment system.

1. Coordinators don't store money 2. DNS stood test of time 3 Nothing blocks up more than BTC.
4. Stop jumping around with vague arguments


No they are not and LN uses hubs so stop shooting yourself in the foot

ETH, Ripple, HashGraph  are doing just that but stay in the past if you want

Again that's not what i read but if you feel that revving the car engine without putting car in gear is not
a counter argument then I cannot help you. 


Did you decide which ones are "meaningful" and why do you think the others have taken it out
and you also ignore my point about it not being needed in the first place.


Genuine BTC is in block-chain and changed to them would not help anything to scale so
something must be in these "real, time based transactions " but you don't seem to know
what so i will continue to assume IOU's or fakes   


Then the world must all be wrong, LN must be wrong using hubs and if your looking for "complexity" then look no further than mining 

I don't mind new protocol to talk to the block chain but that's not what it is and you know it and your comments fly's in the
face of whats being said about the LN saving BTC in fess and dealing with micro-transactions   



Comments about caching was in relation to BTC block-chain nodes in groups, nothing at all to do with LN

Fine the IOU or Clone or fake has a reference to a wallet in BTC but it's still not the original wallet in the
BC that is being transacted upon so this creates more problems than what it solves during settlement
and is a right budge up and you talk about avoiding "complexity"

Yes lots of forks as others try to cash in on BTC but some are just doing forks to fix what is wrong and are
doing it in a rush. Me myself if i wanted to entice BTC members using air-drops would import the BC into
a completely redesign system and split the block-chain up into more manageable sized sections as has
been good code practice from year dot on any system that needs to scale.


Yes we are back to decentralizes and trustless again in LN terms the decentralizes I am talking about is the same as being used
in LN Hubs (CENTRAL POINTS) so that a shoot to your other foot and throwing trust out the window as if it's a some type of religion
is not the answer.

Here we find that the medicine is worse than the disease as implemented in BTC and Ripple establishes trust with nodes as do
web-sites that allow you in and ban you if your start DDOSing them or not doing as you are told. Fantastic
tool trust is and is even used by network switches. Full nodes will need a registration ID and Coordinators will
deal with bad boys so again I say goodbye 51% attack bullshit

1) DNS is not secure, 2) easily blocked and 3) not used to transact millions of dollars worth of currency.



Coordinators require trust, which is something cryptocurrencies are striving to get rid of.



Separating the currency from the network leads to counterparty risk.



PoW has nothing to do with spam transactions. "PoW is stupid" is not a counter-argument. All meaningful BTC hardforks are relying on PoW so far.



Everyone can set up nodes using IP addresses instead of domain names. The application of DNS is irrelevant to this discussion.



No such things as coordinators / hubs / gateways in the LN network topology. Alice is a LN node. Bob is a LN node. Everyone en route between Alice and Bob is a node.

Once again, no IOUs. No fake tokens. All very real, time based transactions.

I know too little about blockchain sharding to argue either for or against it, I guess I'll watch Ethereum to see how this works out. Not sure if there ever has been any discourse of applying sharding to the Bitcoin blockchain. It seems to come with its own set of problems however.



Assuming blockchain sharding relies on coordinators, we have a weak point and needless complexity right there. I do assume though that there are more effective approaches than that.

LN is neither a rewrite nor a patch btw, it's simply an additional protocol layer. Much like OMNI and XCP before it. And like HTTP on top of TCP/IP before even that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the reply will be cached". If this still refers to LN, a channel state is maintained, but kept up to date by enforcing state updates by using presigned timelocked transactions.



If this still refers to LN, coins can still be traced back to their origin, even when using LN.



You're welcome to fork then Or contribute to one of the alts that are eying blockchain sharding right now (assuming ETH is not the only one).



Read up on sybil attacks on why this is a bad idea. Also the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to go trustless. Trying to create a trustee network comes with problems of its own. It's barely working with Root and Intermediary CAs. It becomes even less reliable with incentives to defect, such as the case with digital cash.

DNS does not have single point of failure and uses a tree structure of command but even if you took the top node down the system still works
and if needs be the structure could assign itself a new top level node using voting. Think more down the lines of Coordinators in relation to coins
to break nodes down into useful groups. Tree structure will scale better than what we have now, no brainier.

Coordinators will all so deal with trust rating so nodes that start playing stupid get blocked so good bye BS about 51% attack and hello GUID node
registration.


The currency and network has got to be separated and it will be in the end so we all have a public address and any currency gets sent to the address
so in effect the wallet has one address instead of ten pub/private keys which are still present but used after handshake and protocol is setup.


Spamming, double spend both prevented by PoW from what i read but PoW stupid and is being dumped by everyone even in the forks.


Virgin nodes at startup use DNS to get list of well know nodes and i can find you the address if you like but after that it uses cached IP-Address to find
a live node on the network and nodes relay between each other a list and the state of other nodes. I am talking new node start up.



I did and you did not deal with what Alice sends to bob and you are forced to accept Coordinators (Hubs/Gateways) in LN anyway so why not
wrap it up by breaking the 200gb block-chain down into more a tree structure and then it will scale better and you don't need IOU's or fake tokens.

Block-Chain is a liked list of headers but groups of nodes organised by Coordinators can deal with sections to provide redundancy within the section so in effect the LN patch up
(or rewrite in disguise) is at the wrong level and as a transaction hits one set of node then a request will be sent to another set of nodes but after that the reply will be cached
Here I am talking about having to trace back down the chain to the origin of each coin part back to when it was mined

Mining is a waste of time, nodes get paid for transactions, far too much time and effort plus code is dedicated to printing new coins
and ten possible alternatives exist here so stop the competition where effectively nodes are fighting other nodes and making hardware
manufactures and big oil rich and happy. THIS PART IS THE BIGGEST FUCK-UP EVER DEVISED MY MAN!

Break the current 200gb Block-chain down to say 16 X 16 sections and each section has a group of nodes then you will start getting some speed but if i am honest
it's patching something instead of having a white sheet of paper to work from and i think that's whats needed and i will add this concept of public ledger we all
love and trust does allow anyone to clone it and produce a forks so that needs a long term solution 

Maybe wallets need voting rights so we can appoint people as trustees and then go at it from that angle because all S-M has done is left a mess that won't scale, wastes
energy and started CPU wars plus allows forks and clones.

Even a decentralized system is only as strong as its weakest link if it has a single point of failure. See Ripple and how tokens are issued.

The consensus protocol itself is quite interesting and I'm sure that LN has borrowed some pages from it (assuming there is no prior work on which both protocols are based upon) but I still find it hard to trust a payment network that relies on a central corporate entity for both development and token issuance. I'm sure that Ripple has merits of its own but it's not quite what I expect from a cryptocurrency.



PoW is not about preventing spam transactions, it's about preventing double-spend attacks. Before PoW came along you couldn't rely on keeping a valid, reliable ledger state without a central entity acting as arbiter. Bitcoin's master stroke is making the network not only fault-tolerant against attackers, but actually using what would usually be an attack -- ie. brute force -- to protect the network from the very same class of attacks.

Like everything this approach comes with a trade-off, which in this case is secure decentralization -- on every aspect -- at the cost of performance. At least to me the electricity cost involved seems like a step upward from the waste of human resources that is banking, but that's up for debate of course. One could argue whether the problem of central entities controlling finance is actually a problem worth solving, but assuming it is, PoW is unfortunately our best bet so far. There are other PoX approaches of course, but their viability is a different discussion.



I'm not sure I quite follow you here. You don't need to rely on DNS to connect to other nodes. You can't use DNS spoofing to fake transactions. Worst case you could probably prevent specific nodes from sending or receiving transactions, but that would require a lot of targeted resources without much impact on Bitcoin as a whole.


Assuming you haven't already, you should really look into how LN works. You might be surprised that it's not quite the plaster you expect it to be.

Here's a good starting point:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/

Welcome and at last someone who's skills extend past slot machines so lets do battle friend!

I like the concept of centralization even less than you in the way it's being presented with banksters calling the shoots but we can have
a decentralized system of coordinators without having to bend over to know who. See Ripple and how trust is established (Yes Ripple is banker central, i know!)


Wow, hold on a second because we never needed PoW in the past and tight loops are to be avoided and spamming is avoided
by transactions fees anyway and what about the waste of energy so it now costs 90KWH of electric to process 250 bytes of data.
Reeving engine with car out of gear is crazy

See above comment but let me add to this because virgin nodes starting up uses DNS to get a list of well known nodes anyway
but you will also note that DNS serves cannot steel coins (Maybe they could thinking about it again) so the white-paper broke
it's number one rule anyway and is government blocked domain names on one server then others would take over like OpenDNS



OK if all the BTC token are in the ledger, you know the thing that's all blocked up then me sending you $0.01 must be a fake
BTC because to change the balance in the official ledger would result on blocks getting bigger and this fake is a token, cannot be original
so we need hubs (See documentation) and someone must trust that I am good for this money sent over a channel .............................

Hubs are banks (Semi trusted) and use IOU's so lets not play with words, no one lends anything for free and will charge for the speed too

Your comment makes no sense and something must be moving between Alice and Bob plus this video contradicts you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

It should be up and running in 4-6 months. By that time we may be deep into a bear market and the whole distribution of wealth will change. Those who were too late for this month's rally will have another chance and the current holders will have a chance to show their dedication.
I also agree with you that it's going to be adopted. Forks were dividing the community and lightning offers us a resolution without the need to make a new coin.

The lightning Network will not affect the cryptocurrency market immediately. We will wait for months before we can see the impact of LN on Bitcoin.
Devs are doing their best, but it is always up to users whether to support it or not.
I am certain that the lightning network will be massively adopted since all users are suffering from high trasactions fees.

I don't know about HashGraph, but every other solution you propose is based on using a central entity to manage transactions and prevent double-spends. That's a trivial problem that has been solved decades ago. That is not the problem that Bitcoin has solved.

What Bitcoin solved by applying PoW to the double-spend problem is something wholly different. It seems wasteful, it looks weird, but it's the only meaningful and secure solution so far that allows transactions without relying on a central entity.

One can argue about whether decentralized currencies are worth it, but arguing that centralization is what would help cryptocurrencies scale is approaching the problem from the wrong angle.




Lightning Network is not "trading" anything. It's not a different language or a different set of tokens. It's Bitcoin scripts handling bitcoins. No new tokens that get conjured out of nothing. No IOU's that come with counter-party risk. Just Bitcoin.

It looks a great news at first sight but definitely we need to see more carefully. I believe time will tell us if its really that great or just a fake hope.

You make them sound like professional software developers and i will even agree with the last part " slower than centralized development."
but lets look at the facts.

1. BTC was never going to scale to mass adoption.
2. Good code would allow block size switch and size change in seconds
3. PoW wastes electrical energy
4. Mining = CPU war
5. 20,000 full nodes to do just 7 trades a second is madness
6. Lightning poor model to integrate, sticking plaster and is too late

As a software developer for 35 years (Back to ZX 48k Spectrum) with various letters after my
name I would be quite interested in entering into a debate over the points I have raised and
then lets see if anyone is swimming without any trunks on