Check this video at 3:09
LN is a Mesh with 80 Hubs. always attackable. Anyone get this explained?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/is-matonis-wright-analyse-this-video-and-build-your-settled-view-1997310
And yes, if you do not concentrate to on chain scaling, you allow starting that less secure crap around, weakening bitcoin network security...
Topic: i have proven the Lightning Network can't provide decentralized scaling. - page 2. (Read 2345 times)
July 02, 2017, 05:37:59 AM
July 02, 2017, 03:24:50 AM
The problem isn't off chain per se, its cripping on chain and not letting it compete fairly with off chain which is what Blockstream is doing. Let the market decide.
Point taken.
What I mean by institutions: If base blockchain becomes very expensive (and assuming that everyone just doesnt leave to use altcoins) then what bitcoin will become is
only big players (exchanges, banks, brokerages, etc) transacting with each other and users being forced to use the services that run on top of them, since no one will pay
$100+ just for a tx.
only big players (exchanges, banks, brokerages, etc) transacting with each other and users being forced to use the services that run on top of them, since no one will pay
$100+ just for a tx.
Thank you for elaborating! I argue that despite the monetary overhead needed also regular users would be able to act as LN hubs. You're assuming that everyone needs to have 100% of their funds to be liquid all the time. Let's not forget that there's a lot of early adopters that have more Bitcoins at their hands than they would need for their monthly expenses. Regarding the avoidance of institutional actors, wealth disparity may actually work in favour of LN.
And the big shit is that BScore wants to do this wrong order. I m happy to have such channels later when on chain scaling , the most secure thing ever, is maximized. Also miners want that first because with LN firsst they have to share fees and miners are one of the biggest users as well...
July 02, 2017, 03:18:40 AM
The problem isn't off chain per se, its cripping on chain and not letting it compete fairly with off chain which is what Blockstream is doing. Let the market decide.
Point taken.
What I mean by institutions: If base blockchain becomes very expensive (and assuming that everyone just doesnt leave to use altcoins) then what bitcoin will become is
only big players (exchanges, banks, brokerages, etc) transacting with each other and users being forced to use the services that run on top of them, since no one will pay
$100+ just for a tx.
only big players (exchanges, banks, brokerages, etc) transacting with each other and users being forced to use the services that run on top of them, since no one will pay
$100+ just for a tx.
Thank you for elaborating! I argue that despite the monetary overhead needed also regular users would be able to act as LN hubs. You're assuming that everyone needs to have 100% of their funds to be liquid all the time. Let's not forget that there's a lot of early adopters that have more Bitcoins at their hands than they would need for their monthly expenses. Regarding the avoidance of institutional actors, wealth disparity may actually work in favour of LN.
July 01, 2017, 09:24:28 PM
The developers should figure out the scaling issues now. I am talking for long-term so that we don't need to go through this again when the price is, say, $50,000.
Agree. I mean I don't know what the best scaling solution would be. But segwit2x I'm guessing is only gonna scale bitcoin for maybe a couple of years at best I would think, if that. Then we are just gonna need another solution. If a hard fork happens it needs to be a one time thing, not every year a hard fork is needed to keep scaling bitcoin. I guess some people think Lightning Network is the ultimate scaling solution for bitcoin. I'm not sold, I just don't see it being used for more than a few percent of transactions, but I could be wrong. But its use case seems pretty niche to me. Hell, it could be that blockchain tech just isn't scalable to a mass market level (at least without needing vast super computers or vast groups of computers as the mining nodes, but then it really isn't any different than centralized solutions).
July 01, 2017, 06:58:04 PM
The developers should figure out the scaling issues now. I am talking for long-term so that we don't need to go through this again when the price is, say, $50,000.
This whole thing has been about control through the veil of scaling. The desire for control will never go away and no scaling solution will ever satisfy everyone. It's never going away but let's at least try and make one upgrade to see if it's actually possible.
There's a constant tension between capacity and the worry of centralisation that'll never go away.
July 01, 2017, 06:53:23 PM
The developers should figure out the scaling issues now. I am talking for long-term so that we don't need to go through this again when the price is, say, $50,000.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
July 01, 2017, 06:29:13 PM
to respond to two of your points earlier:
1. The point is to stop cripping the main chain with a blocksize limit. Any limit (unless its orders of magnitude beyond market demand)
makes fees artificially high, which creates an economic barrier to transacting on-chain.
2. I don't believe in the 'latency' argument all that much. A miner should have a fast internet connection,
and at worst , they're going to be a few seconds behind someone else? Not substantial when talking
about a 600 second block interval.
1. The point is to stop cripping the main chain with a blocksize limit. Any limit (unless its orders of magnitude beyond market demand)
makes fees artificially high, which creates an economic barrier to transacting on-chain.
2. I don't believe in the 'latency' argument all that much. A miner should have a fast internet connection,
and at worst , they're going to be a few seconds behind someone else? Not substantial when talking
about a 600 second block interval.
Problem with simply increasing the blocksize limit is that it's only a linear way of scaling. It won't suffice. Not saying that the current blocksize limit is ideal, but once you reach say 100MB latency may very well become a problem. And even then you're still not close to VISA level of transactions per seconds. "Just a few seconds behind someone else" can get pretty costly in what is poised to become a billion dollar industry.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping as much on-chain as possible. It's only that off-chain transaction options don't seem so harmful to me as long as they are 1) not the only way to use the protocol and 2) decentralized.
The problem is that if you force people not to use that base layer, it doesn't really matter what the layers on top will look like, because institutions become gatekeepers.
I'd still like to know what you mean by institutions.
The problem isn't off chain per se, its cripping on chain and not letting it compete fairly with off chain which is what Blockstream is doing. Let the market decide.
What I mean by institutions: If base blockchain becomes very expensive (and assuming that everyone just doesnt leave to use altcoins) then what bitcoin will become is
only big players (exchanges, banks, brokerages, etc) transacting with each other and users being forced to use the services that run on top of them, since no one will pay
$100+ just for a tx.
July 01, 2017, 04:31:17 PM
to respond to two of your points earlier:
1. The point is to stop cripping the main chain with a blocksize limit. Any limit (unless its orders of magnitude beyond market demand)
makes fees artificially high, which creates an economic barrier to transacting on-chain.
2. I don't believe in the 'latency' argument all that much. A miner should have a fast internet connection,
and at worst , they're going to be a few seconds behind someone else? Not substantial when talking
about a 600 second block interval.
1. The point is to stop cripping the main chain with a blocksize limit. Any limit (unless its orders of magnitude beyond market demand)
makes fees artificially high, which creates an economic barrier to transacting on-chain.
2. I don't believe in the 'latency' argument all that much. A miner should have a fast internet connection,
and at worst , they're going to be a few seconds behind someone else? Not substantial when talking
about a 600 second block interval.
Problem with simply increasing the blocksize limit is that it's only a linear way of scaling. It won't suffice. Not saying that the current blocksize limit is ideal, but once you reach say 100MB latency may very well become a problem. And even then you're still not close to VISA level of transactions per seconds. "Just a few seconds behind someone else" can get pretty costly in what is poised to become a billion dollar industry.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping as much on-chain as possible. It's only that off-chain transaction options don't seem so harmful to me as long as they are 1) not the only way to use the protocol and 2) decentralized.
The problem is that if you force people not to use that base layer, it doesn't really matter what the layers on top will look like, because institutions become gatekeepers.
I'd still like to know what you mean by institutions.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
July 01, 2017, 02:22:45 PM
@HeRetiK
to respond to two of your points earlier:
1. The point is to stop cripping the main chain with a blocksize limit. Any limit (unless its orders of magnitude beyond market demand)
makes fees artificially high, which creates an economic barrier to transacting on-chain.
2. I don't believe in the 'latency' argument all that much. A miner should have a fast internet connection,
and at worst , they're going to be a few seconds behind someone else? Not substantial when talking
about a 600 second block interval.
@tokeweed
this was my response to Bram:
https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/bram-are-you-sure-you-understand-the-article-51dc0365f27e
to respond to two of your points earlier:
1. The point is to stop cripping the main chain with a blocksize limit. Any limit (unless its orders of magnitude beyond market demand)
makes fees artificially high, which creates an economic barrier to transacting on-chain.
2. I don't believe in the 'latency' argument all that much. A miner should have a fast internet connection,
and at worst , they're going to be a few seconds behind someone else? Not substantial when talking
about a 600 second block interval.
@tokeweed
this was my response to Bram:
https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/bram-are-you-sure-you-understand-the-article-51dc0365f27e
July 01, 2017, 01:52:44 PM
I sadly have no proper model for, but think about the (mostly poor) masses will be adopted through cheap LN costs. How much % of the on chain tx will be caused by LN and limilar channels compared to now?
I d estimate more than 90% will. So you end up in huge traffic on such a hub node. Sounds not so cheap...
I d estimate more than 90% will. So you end up in huge traffic on such a hub node. Sounds not so cheap...
Bandwidth is as cheap as ever. Even if you can't run it at home you can get virtual private servers with 1TB of bandwidth for as little as USD 5,- / month at digitalocean.
July 01, 2017, 01:46:57 PM
For bitcoin to truly take off on a global mass market scale it does need to be as user friendly, or very close to it, as current centralized options. Most people care about ease of use. If there isn't a significant negative difference in using bitcoin compared to standard options, then thats when mass use will happen because bitcoin has additional great features with the main one being you have control over your own money.
I can't see how it could ever match your friendly local bank for convenience and safety unless you use it through a centralised portal.
He indeed misses the main point and for now it's the only point that matters. If it isn't decentralised then there really isn't much point in using it at all.
It can reach a huge scale without your average person switching from Paypal because it has qualities that Paypal will never match. If people can't see that then they should not be getting involved. There are enough others who can.
It was deeply stupid for anyone to tout it as some type of fun filled alternative to your debit card that was just as free and quick. As we now see actual usage brings some strains. They need a lot of hammering out.
July 01, 2017, 11:03:22 AM
Apparently this guy read the blog and made a comment on Twitter. I just wanna see a counter argument from jonald_fyookball and what his other thoughts are.
https://medium.com/@bramcohen/in-this-analysis-nodes-arent-bothering-to-make-sure-that-they-have-any-connections-at-all-1fba7115e61d
https://medium.com/@bramcohen/in-this-analysis-nodes-arent-bothering-to-make-sure-that-they-have-any-connections-at-all-1fba7115e61d
3 channels per user
guaranteed routing
LOL
guess he hasnt done much of the "x degree's of separation" theory.
3degree's of separation requires 21 'hops' to cover 10billion people so that everyone can connect to everyone
now think about it 10billion people with 3 channels, thats 30billion funds onchain tx's needing to be broadcast ONCHAIN to open such channels
...
also each of those channels need to have sufficient funds to flip within the channel to fund the route
also each of those channels need to be online to sign funds. which not everyone will be online 24/7 to 'accept' the route
and ofcourse with each channel costs a 'payment fee' meaning if 1 wants to pay 10mill. he has to find the route and then make 21 payment fee's
relying on all 21 participants to remain online as they payment snowballs through the 21 channels
..
July 01, 2017, 10:27:47 AM
Do you have any idea how dense the bitcoin network already is? If you d really know, youd claim your post as FUD immediately by yourself...
The density of bitcoin nodes doesn't change the underlying physical infrastructure. I remember some of the alts that used extremely short block times (30-60 seconds) having massive orphan rates.
I'm not saying that Bitcoin blocks couldn't be bigger. I'm only pointing out that bandwidth and latency are two separate concerns.
July 01, 2017, 09:54:27 AM
Umf. So if bandwith is cheap why block the on chain scaling then?
Latency. The bigger the blocks compared to the time between blocks, the bigger an issue latency becomes (ie. unless you're close to a large internet backbone your mining operation would run into the risk of orphaned blocks, leading to yet another centralization factor).
Do you have any idea how dense the bitcoin network already is? If you d really know, youd claim your post as FUD immediately by yourself...
July 01, 2017, 09:17:08 AM
There is no point to decentralisation if it doesn't improve our lives in some way. If its more difficult and more expensive then I don't want decentralisation.
It improves your life by denying others control over you.
Achieving that can be costly, irritating and a little clunky sometimes but it's one of those things you'll moan about until you truly need it. At that point it all makes perfect sense.
There are many wonderful centralised options ready for you right now. Give 'em a whirl.
Obviously he is missing the point, as you stated, of being decentralized means you have control over your own money, instead of the bank. That is huge. BUT, the dude has a point because most people will choose the more user friendly option, because people trust banks most of the time with their money. For bitcoin to truly take off on a global mass market scale it does need to be as user friendly, or very close to it, as current centralized options. Most people care about ease of use. If there isn't a significant negative difference in using bitcoin compared to standard options, then thats when mass use will happen because bitcoin has additional great features with the main one being you have control over your own money.
July 01, 2017, 09:05:33 AM
Apparently this guy read the blog and made a comment on Twitter. I just wanna see a counter argument from jonald_fyookball and what his other thoughts are.
https://medium.com/@bramcohen/in-this-analysis-nodes-arent-bothering-to-make-sure-that-they-have-any-connections-at-all-1fba7115e61d
https://medium.com/@bramcohen/in-this-analysis-nodes-arent-bothering-to-make-sure-that-they-have-any-connections-at-all-1fba7115e61d
July 01, 2017, 09:02:03 AM
Lightning Network is basically Ripple on top of Bitcoin. We don't need another IOU system. We need a peer-to-peer digital cash system.
Nope, wrong. You have no clue.
Not just anyone can open up a Ripple gateway, you need to go through all sorts of formalities and already be a financial
Lightning node? Download the software. Finished.
You missed my point. I'm advocating the main chain for the primary transaction mechanism and using Ripple as a general analogy.
July 01, 2017, 08:53:43 AM
Lightning Network is basically Ripple on top of Bitcoin. We don't need another IOU system. We need a peer-to-peer digital cash system.
Nope, wrong. You have no clue.
Not just anyone can open up a Ripple gateway, you need to go through all sorts of formalities and already be a financial
Lightning node? Download the software. Finished.
July 01, 2017, 08:14:05 AM
Lightning Network is basically Ripple on top of Bitcoin. We don't need another IOU system. We need a peer-to-peer digital cash system.
July 01, 2017, 08:11:04 AM
Lol every time you guys are reminded of the 1st Aug you ignite a fire and then the usual band of shills pour in with long posts to defend your ideology .
You think Bitcoin is irreplaceable right? damn wrong, you think you are immune from the outside world? damn wrong you are. people want fast transactions and with enough volume you'll see how other alts sweep in and take the crown. while you all are talking about game theories and how they are taking over the system.
You think Bitcoin is irreplaceable right? damn wrong, you think you are immune from the outside world? damn wrong you are. people want fast transactions and with enough volume you'll see how other alts sweep in and take the crown. while you all are talking about game theories and how they are taking over the system.
Jump to: