Well you need lots of BTC to run a Lightning banking hub so that's PoS plus
skills to gain an advantage using that protocol that won't be available to common users
and big hardware to run these hubs so that will be the miners then.
Thing is would it be fair to call it proof of anything since it's all gone "off-Block" and is about
related to "Block-Chain" as it is for me when I eat a burger and the environmental implications.
Proof is just a fancy bit of words smith to avoid the term "Trust" anyway.
Topic: Is LN a first step to Proof of Stake sidechains? (Read 213 times)
Please, tell us, how exactly does swapping signed commitment transactions across nodes constitute a proof of stake system or a sidechain?
My thinking is, "Proof of Stake" is just a name for a set of rules which allow exchange funds and prevent double spending without expensive mining involved an "Stake" is not necessarily the amount of funds.
So, from this point of view, LN is a rudimentary PoS system where double spending is controlled by all the participants, and it is sidechain because the data is handled "without broadcasting to the blockchain" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network
If you define terms loosely enough you can define anything as anything. Sometimes it can indeed highlight interesting parallels or open up new perspectives.
Sometimes, however, it leads to conclusions such as this:
Does it mean the main direction of Bitcoin's scalability issues addressing is Proof of Stake sidechains?
Which is unfortunately a false conclusion, caused by interpreting words that have concrete meanings in a vague way.
My thinking is, "Proof of Stake" is just a name for a set of rules which allow exchange funds and prevent double spending without expensive mining involved an "Stake" is not necessarily the amount of funds.
Quote
So, from this point of view, LN is a rudimentary PoS system where double spending is controlled by all the participants
Not at all.There are no blocks to be produced no transactions to be validated, no native coins to be produced, there is no stake locked up to validate transactions.
The lightning network relegates double spending protection and all that to the blockchain
The only resemblance with a proof of stake system is the penalty for attempting to cheat the system by broadcasting a stale channel state.
Quote
, and it is sidechain because the data is handled "without broadcasting to the blockchain" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network
Again false.Sidechains are their own blockchains while the Lightning Network is not a blockchain but a "layer" on the bitcoin blockchain.
Infact you can deploy a lightning network on most blockchains that support HLTCs.
If you call any offchain payment mechanism a sidechain then that means you also consider exchanges as sidechains too.
Please, tell us, how exactly does swapping signed commitment transactions across nodes constitute a proof of stake system or a sidechain?
My thinking is, "Proof of Stake" is just a name for a set of rules which allow exchange funds and prevent double spending without expensive mining involved an "Stake" is not necessarily the amount of funds.
So, from this point of view, LN is a rudimentary PoS system where double spending is controlled by all the participants, and it is sidechain because the data is handled "without broadcasting to the blockchain" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network
Please, tell us, how exactly does swapping signed commitment transactions across nodes constitute a proof of stake system or a sidechain?
It's an interesting way to look at it, but Lightning Network's transaction fees have little to do with PoS. LN nodes merely route transactions. They neither verify them, nor do they have to reach consensus on the state of the network which is one of the core aims of PoW and PoS schemes.
At any account, Lightning Network is not a sidechain. It's a construct of smart contracts keeping track of BTC, not alt coins or pegged tokens. So at least looking at Lightning Network there's nothing that would hint at Bitcoin heading towards PoS sidechains for scalability. It is worth noting that Bitcoin's scalability issue is not a question of PoW vs PoS, but rather a question of keeping the data that is publicly stored in its blockchain at a minimum to allow for future sustainability in terms of decentralization.
Atomic cross-chain swaps may enable something similar to what you envision, but will likely not serve as a scaling solution. Still, it might be an topic that you could be interested in.
At any account, Lightning Network is not a sidechain. It's a construct of smart contracts keeping track of BTC, not alt coins or pegged tokens. So at least looking at Lightning Network there's nothing that would hint at Bitcoin heading towards PoS sidechains for scalability. It is worth noting that Bitcoin's scalability issue is not a question of PoW vs PoS, but rather a question of keeping the data that is publicly stored in its blockchain at a minimum to allow for future sustainability in terms of decentralization.
Atomic cross-chain swaps may enable something similar to what you envision, but will likely not serve as a scaling solution. Still, it might be an topic that you could be interested in.
I've been reading the Lightning Network docs recently and just realized the core of it is just camouflaged and simplified PoS system (or sort of). Does it mean the main direction of Bitcoin's scalability issues addressing is Proof of Stake sidechains? If so, can currently existing PoS altcoins be used as a "delegate" layers for this?
Jump to: