i have proven the Lightning Network can't provide decentralized scaling. - page 3.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 2177

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: hv_ on July 01, 2017, 06:28:27 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).

d5000

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 6249

Decentralization Maximalist

Quote from: hv_ on July 01, 2017, 04:45:33 AM

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...

It's surely significantly costly to operate a LN node, but the costs cannot be compared with mining farms. I have also no numbers to show, but if we compare a miner that generates 1% of the hashrate its operating cost should be be much higher than a LN node that routes 1% of the LN traffic.

Also, a misbehaving LN node that censors certain transactions would not be that significant for the network like a misbehaving miner, because LN nodes are more a kind of "external" service that doesn't deal that much with the "heart" of Bitcoin. In many cases I think a LN operator could censor transaction "under the radar" without being noticed because the few people affected would simply use other hubs - but if many LN hubs conspire, they could make it costlier for certain groups to transact efficiently via LN.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: HeRetiK on July 01, 2017, 05:38:20 AM

Quote from: hv_ on July 01, 2017, 04:45:33 AM

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...

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.

Umf. So if bandwith is cheap why block the on chain scaling then?

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 2177

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: hv_ on July 01, 2017, 04:45:33 AM

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...

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.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: d5000 on June 30, 2017, 09:15:14 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on June 30, 2017, 02:04:50 PM

In the 2-layer model, the base letter is the settlement layer. 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.

There are however designs like Drivechains where the "gatekeepers" are the same institution that secures the base layer - miners. In these designs I don't see, for example, possible censorship problems because game theory forces miners to work as expected.

In LN, that's a bit different, above all because the operation cost of a LN "hub node" is lower - and so pressure is lower on hub operators to work censorship-free.

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...

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 2177

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: Carlton Banks on July 01, 2017, 03:22:02 AM

Why would main-chain settlement be more expensive, when billions of transactions are happening on the Lightning network? Moving billions of transactions onto a higher, more efficient network layer would free space on the main-chain, not congest it.

More expensive than LN transactions, under the assumption that on-chain transactions are at capacity with the fee market taking over (ie. the situation as it is right now, just on a larger scale).

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: HeRetiK on July 01, 2017, 03:02:12 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on June 30, 2017, 02:04:50 PM

In the 2-layer model, the base letter is the settlement layer. 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.

Define institutions. LN hub node operators? Also, wouldn't you still be able to use the raw Bitcoin protocol, albeit at a higher transaction cost?

Why would main-chain settlement be more expensive, when billions of transactions are happening on the Lightning network? Moving billions of transactions onto a higher, more efficient network layer would free space on the main-chain, not congest it.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 2177

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on June 30, 2017, 02:04:50 PM

In the 2-layer model, the base letter is the settlement layer. 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.

Define institutions. LN hub node operators? Also, wouldn't you still be able to use the raw Bitcoin protocol, albeit at a higher transaction cost?

Quote from: d5000 on June 30, 2017, 09:15:14 PM

In LN, that's a bit different, above all because the operation cost of a LN "hub node" is lower - and so pressure is lower on hub operators to work censorship-free.

Wouldn't the lower operation cost of a LN hub node also mean that it's easier to become one, meaning more hub nodes, meaning a lesser chance of censorship?

cpfreeplz

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1042

Quote from: gentlemand on June 30, 2017, 06:55:43 AM

I'm not going to pretend to have the slightest clue how it pans out until there are a few actually up and running.

Quote from: ebliever on June 29, 2017, 11:26:30 PM

You imagine that people will stand around doing nothing to change their behavior as LN nodes become centralized. But if decentralization is worth anything then that is precisely what will not happen.

Whisper it, but most people would choose convenience over decentralisation most days of the week. Look at Coinbase.

Lol. ^ This. It's so true. People just love keeping their money on exchanges and they love their Web wallets. They're the credit cards of the bitcoin world. Easy to hack, easy to get another.

Yakamoto

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1007

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on June 29, 2017, 10:47:33 PM

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

let the trolling begin...3....2....1....

I like the article and the argument presented, although I thought that everyone was under the impression that any sort of LN system would have to have centralized nodes in order for something like that to work. You can't have a bunch of LNs running and get them to all go through as transactions without some sort of node that connects everything together, let it be a completely centralized node or a set of centralized nodes spread out which interact with each other.

I didn't realize you wrote articles, good job m8. I'm gonna see if I can read more of them in the future.

d5000

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 6249

Decentralization Maximalist

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on June 30, 2017, 02:04:50 PM

In the 2-layer model, the base letter is the settlement layer. 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.

There are however designs like Drivechains where the "gatekeepers" are the same institution that secures the base layer - miners. In these designs I don't see, for example, possible censorship problems because game theory forces miners to work as expected.

In LN, that's a bit different, above all because the operation cost of a LN "hub node" is lower - and so pressure is lower on hub operators to work censorship-free.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: HeRetiK on June 30, 2017, 09:01:12 AM

Interesting read, but does a settlement layer really need to be fully distributed to remain permissionless? Isn't a strongly decentralized network enough (ie. any user with a sufficient amount of Bitcoin acting as a LN hub)? Or is there something I miss that could prevent the latter from effectively happening?

In the 2-layer model, the base letter is the settlement layer. 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.

It may be that things like sidechains are logistically much better than LN...but they will have all the same economic problems.

It just so happens that on top that (no pun intended), LN just can't work.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 2177

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Interesting read, but does a settlement layer really need to be fully distributed to remain permissionless? Isn't a strongly decentralized network enough (ie. any user with a sufficient amount of Bitcoin acting as a LN hub)? Or is there something I miss that could prevent the latter from effectively happening?

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: dinalo on June 30, 2017, 08:06:47 AM

If its more difficult and more expensive then I don't want decentralisation.

Do you want Bitcoin, then?

Bitcoin is difficult and expensive, and decentralised (although to be fair, Lightning will make it easier and cheaper, at least in terms of transaction fees).

It seems that the increasing number of people joining the Bitcoin holders and the Bitcoin network disagree with you. But by all means, make your own choice.

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3014

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: dinalo on June 30, 2017, 08:06:47 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.

dinalo

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 0

Quote from: gentlemand on June 30, 2017, 06:55:43 AM

I'm not going to pretend to have the slightest clue how it pans out until there are a few actually up and running.

Quote from: ebliever on June 29, 2017, 11:26:30 PM

You imagine that people will stand around doing nothing to change their behavior as LN nodes become centralized. But if decentralization is worth anything then that is precisely what will not happen.

Whisper it, but most people would choose convenience over decentralisation most days of the week. Look at Coinbase.

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.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: ebliever on June 30, 2017, 07:47:03 AM

We (as a community) just need to make sure the protocol is not co-opted to raise barriers to entry in handling Bitcoin TX

Best example: massive increases to the blocksize.

With small blocks and conservative blocksize increases, Lightning is much more conducive to a decentralised network topology. And at the end of the day, as long as the blocks are small enough for any small business to have sufficient cash flow that they can run their own hub, then that's exactly what small businesses will do: be their own bank. Business people instinctively want control over their livelihoods.

Whereas the alternative is the various Bitcoin takeovers (that never seem to quit with new coup attempts, disguised as a "technology upgrade"), which all mysteriously give all the control to miners by design (did I mention that the miners always push the community to adopt their wonderful ~~takeover~~ plan?). Lightning could end up like that, but doesn't have to be, if the blocksize stays conservatively small.

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1036

Quote from: gentlemand on June 30, 2017, 06:55:43 AM

I'm not going to pretend to have the slightest clue how it pans out until there are a few actually up and running.

Quote from: ebliever on June 29, 2017, 11:26:30 PM

You imagine that people will stand around doing nothing to change their behavior as LN nodes become centralized. But if decentralization is worth anything then that is precisely what will not happen.

Whisper it, but most people would choose convenience over decentralisation most days of the week. Look at Coinbase.

Yes, exactly. And then look at all the alternatives. I'm not saying there won't be an unequal distribution of channels. I expect the efficient and good LN operators to dominate. But just as there are many smaller exchanges catering to people who have reason to reject or look beyond Coinbase, there will be alternatives to using major LN channels. We (as a community) just need to make sure the protocol is not co-opted to raise barriers to entry in handling Bitcoin TX, such as when miners try to prevent off-chain TX.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: gentlemand on June 30, 2017, 06:55:43 AM

Whisper it, but most people would choose convenience over decentralisation most days of the week. Look at Coinbase.

Indeed, the tragedy of decentralisation. Everyone can set up his own web page, but we all run to centralized Facebook to share our social interaction. Usenet was a decentralized discussion platform, but we all run to centralized fora. We could have built an internet with 'cables and links from house to house', but we all use centralized internet service providers.

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3014

Welt Am Draht

I'm not going to pretend to have the slightest clue how it pans out until there are a few actually up and running.

Quote from: ebliever on June 29, 2017, 11:26:30 PM

You imagine that people will stand around doing nothing to change their behavior as LN nodes become centralized. But if decentralization is worth anything then that is precisely what will not happen.

Whisper it, but most people would choose convenience over decentralisation most days of the week. Look at Coinbase.

Topic: i have proven the Lightning Network can't provide decentralized scaling. - page 3. (Read 2328 times)