Topic: i have proven the Lightning Network can't provide decentralized scaling. - page 4. (Read 2328 times)

Amen.  Indeed, the HUGE difference between a LN P2P network and another P2P network, is that connecting, and disconnecting, is expensive.  The whole strength of decentralized P2P networks protocols is the easiness of setting up tunnels and breaking them ; but with the LN, your funds are engaged (with lock up time, and fees to unlock them).

Moreover, the LN is dangerous if the block chain is limited, because there cannot be "simultaneous settling".  In the case of an exchange that goes down for instance, all customers will want to settle their channels simultaneously, and that will be so many transactions, that a hard limited block chain like bitcoin will push a lot of transactions over the lock out time, meaning that the exchange can, after all, run with their funds.

I essentially agree with your analysis.  I've said several times that instead of a small "economy of scale" with mining, which has already made mining an oligarchic business, the "economy of scale" in lightning is essentially proportional  to the amount of funds you can put into your links.  Which makes a HUGE advantage for whales, becoming central hubs: your bank.

In fact, the lightning network is PERFECT for your connection to your favourite exchange, which can act as one of the few central hubs in the world.  It has the advantage that the central exchange cannot run with your funds, like it does now, with an IOU.  Big exchanges can have bidirectional channels between them (the "banking back bone", swift-like), and as such, you can pay anyone through your channel to your exchange (you only need 1 channel with all your funds !), your exchange can transmit your funds to the exchange where your target is a customer, and that exchange will "push" the coins on your target's channel.  3-hop LN.

Of course, your exchange is now your bank, that can charge you with fees for using their banking service, can block payments to certain other people, knows all you do with your funds, etc.... but at least, compared to a normal bank, cannot run with your funds.... unless they can spam you out of the block chain for the time it takes to settle...

The LN is the missing technology that will turn centralized exchanges into world banks.

" we will prove it is mathematically impossible. / We will divide this document into sections. Here I was thinking you have proven this wrong and that you were behind all this shilling.  What is the difference between 5000 hubs and 5000 nodes again? Is the one less decentralized than the other?

Let the users decide what they want, because we are already being screwed by the miners and the developers. Good last ditch effort to confuse people. ^smile^

You may think I begin trolling now ... but I mostly agree with your analysis. I have discussed, above all, the "channel exhaustion" (=channels that lose the "routing power") problem with other users and no solution (that doesn't involve a centralized entity) has been found.

For me, LN was never more than a semi-centralized micropayment solution that is better than a totally-centralized online wallet because the "bank" cannot run away with my money. I would be happy if I can manage all my 0-20USD payments via LN and having at least 10 different hubs to chose from.

Except you didn't, as has been extensively discussed in the other forums you or others are spamming with your latest effort.

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. Ironically the UASF for SW that you so fear is evidence that people are not passive in response to threats to their economic well-being.

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....