Topic: Is the Lightning Network centralized? (Read 1981 times)

In my opinion bitcoin clearly implements a decentralized system, because indeed its main purpose is to divide the server from centralized to each computer with the aim of minimizing fraud and inefficiency.

If the bitcoin transaction is centered, it will return to the government policy that has been carried out, where there are regulations issued by the central bank that make the owner of bitcoin no different from the owner of fiat money. For the government, it is good because there is monitoring, and trying to find an agreement to be able to collect taxes.

Yes, here we go again.   

It's a perfectly fair comparison to make when you keep trying to turn BTC into BCH.  You're the one bringing it up each and every time you obnoxiously declare that we should be doing things like other coins are doing.  There is already a chain that have placed the sole focus towards on-chain scaling.  This chain isn't doing that.  There is no point in having two chains both following a similar roadmap.  That would be redundant.  It's better to try divergent paths and then see which one turns out to be correct.  My bet is on the BTC chain, supported by Lightning.  You place your bets wherever you want.  Whether you call Lightning a "layer" or something else entirely, doesn't change the fact that this is what we're doing.  You don't have to like it, you don't have to use it, but STFU if you think you can stop it.  None of your weasel-words can change what is already set in motion.

If BTC users eventually decide they want more on-chain scaling, then that's what will happen.  Until then, you need to accept that, on the whole, they don't want more on-chain scaling right now.  Consensus has been reached no matter how much you cry foul on exactly how that came about. 



How about realise that we already know that.  You talk as though you're revealing some sort of greater truth to us, like we're total simpletons who don't get it.  We know what we're doing.  It's what we want to do.  You're the one who doesn't get it.  You think that just because you want to do something else, we can't do what we've already started doing.  The onus is on you to forge your own path if you can't reconcile your differences with us.  We are many, you are few.  You can tell us we're wrong all you like, but you can't stop us, so your words are falling on deaf ears because you can't come up with a convincing argument.

Meaning what? That the risks of that on the whole system itself are imaginary?


Can you explain how they each work, and how they are the same? I am confused.


The point of showing that random tweet is, "what should matter is the base layer, it should remain censorship resistant, secure, and immutable", that makes a debate for off-chain layers.

Did you not argue that on-chain scaling is the way because Bitcoin is supposed to be "peer to peer cash"?

oh here we go again
calling lightning a bitcoin feature but using the term "layer"
you might aswell call ripple a bitcoin layer. or circle.com a bitcoin layer
whats next re introduce NXT as bitcoin2.0

.. and then for no reason at all you introduce a random tweet from a nobody talking about a different altcoin.......
seens you really have ran down the rabbit hole of not letting people talk about the reality of lightning and to keep trying to meander the topic into a point finger at bitcoin cash..

so here goes, bitcoin cash is a separate network that does not affect anything. so why bring it up.... oh yea thats it.. 3 years of the astroturfing tactic of meandering topics..
thats a boring well known and failed tactic. to distract the conversation away from talking about real flaws by trying to make it into a bch btc social drama
(do i need to remind you of the kardashian drama trick)

how about realise that LN is not a bitcoin sole feature. it was not designed for bitcoin.. bitcoin actually had to be changed to fit LN, not the other way round

LN asks for the chain hash of which chain to monitor because its a separate network for many coins.
the network is not centralised. but the channels and funds will become centralised. learn about factories
and right now the codebase seems to be coded by the same group that were salivating over blockstream

That's certainly true, mate. Those Lightning explorers disclose more information than block explorers themselves. As such, third parties would be able to see LN node information, which I believe it's a huge privacy risk. This can be used by governments to quickly track a LN node's payments and reveal the person routing those transactions. Of course, many transactions are routed by a LN node, but knowing specific information about the node, would pose a risk to the person running it as the government could easily track him and take the necessary actions against him.

However, I don't think that's something to be concerned about right now, since the LN is as decentralized as it could be. Various nodes distributed across diverse geographical locations, would make it nearly impossible to shut down by the government. Therefore, if a specific node gets shut down by the government, there will always exist other nodes available for users to route transactions. Just my thoughts

Maybe you should start working for a risk dept in a bigger institution first - than you learn what it means and what to do about.

But thx that you brought up that very good point!

But that should not suggest that layered protocols for Bitcoin should never be explored. If the Lightning Network fails then it fails. What should matter is the base layer, it should remain censorship resistant, secure, and immutable, not taking risks like this,

i can also without LN make private payments. yep you dont need LN nodes.
people have been using multisig for years and doing things privately.
many exchanges have had multisig reserves between themselves for years without LN and without needing to broadcast every trade to a blockchain

people have actually done physical bitcoin trades (paper wallet and casascius coins) without needing to broadcast to a blockchain

in 2012-2013 i remember arbitraging between mtgox, btc-e and bitstamp without seeing bitcoin broadcast onchain

Actually, you are right. 1ML.com is an example of such explorer. However, it is possible to open a private channel which is only known to nodes which maintain it. Such channel is excluded from routing outside payments since other nodes don't know that it exists. LND allows their users to open a private channel by adding --private parameter while opening a channel. I guess it's only useful for people who often trade between themselves and don't wont other people to interrupt.

but there are things such as lightning explorers
they reveal many things, balances per channel, who the nodes connect to. they actually reveal alot more then the bitcoin block explorer does about individuals

its quite funny how much stats you can get out of lightning about a particular node. but you cant get node information out of a block explorer.

using the node information you can see what node just signed some funds and which other node it got attributed to
so have fun looking at lightning network stats/visualisations.

The Drivechain approach - Paul Sztorc and his team released a first test version in September - is similarly decentralized and can scale to hundreds of millions or even billions of users as lots of "drivechains" could be created and the impact on the main chain would be minimal. It would likely not provide "instant payments", but has other advantages - for example, both nodes don't have to be online together, and there is no trust involved (only in miners). There will be always trade-offs.

I believe both LN and "drivechains" can coexist peacefully. If BTC gets billions of users, then both solutions would be needed.  LN could handle instant micropayments, and "drivechains" larger payments where "instantness" isn't as important.

(LN maximalists' protest incoming ... 3... 2... 1.... )

Indeed. The Lightning Network would make Bitcoin near-instant with the lowest costs possible. In contrast to most scalable solutions available today, (such as increasing the block size or even using DPoS) I believe that the Lightning Network is the most decentralized approach yet towards scaling Bitcoin to a large mass. The upcoming features will not only make Bitcoin faster and cheaper than ever, but also much more flexible when it comes to trading Bitcoin to another cryptocurrency via the use of Atomic Swaps. Once the Lightning Network goes full steam ahead, then such feature could prove to be even better than existing decentralized exchanges.

Aside from that, even if the Lightning Network were to fail, it wouldn’t be of any harm to the Bitcoin blockchain since it’s a second layer solution. Off-chain payments would obtain the security of the Bitcoin blockchain but without sacrificing its decentralization. As such, the failure of the LN would have no impact on Bitcoin whatsoever, as transactions could operate as intended within the main chain.

Therefore, the Lightning Network is the most decentralized approach to scaling yet, but it may need some time before it becomes stable enough for mainstream use. Just my thoughts

Bitcoin on-chain transactions are not anonymous. Anyone can use a block explorer to view address balance and incoming/outgoing payments. There is no such things as a block explorer for the Lightning Network since there are no blocks. Nodes which take part in the payment routing are the only ones who know about the ongoing transaction.

Next time read what you have wrote before posting. It was difficult to understand what you were trying to say and it wasn't related to your quote.

We all are ware with this decentralised nature of bitcoin as we all know that there is no such proper authentic regulating body over bitcoin who could keep eye over all the bitcoin activities and specifically the illegal one and thus leading to illegal use like in selling drugs, explosives, money laundering etc and next thing bitcoin transactions does not involve any third party seizure so no third person has the right to see the transaction between the two and thus some social defaulters misuse it and use bitcoin for illegal purposes and this is the most probable reason why bitcoin is decentralised in many countries.

I think that LN is just a way of making the bitcoin transaction faster that what it was today because of it's feature there is no way it could be centralized since it is in bitcoin

In my opinion the key is in "who can run a lightning node/hub?" as long as it is anybody who wants (which is the case and now there is incentive to run a node) then i don't see any kind of centralization in this. you are still connecting to a peer to peer network and making a transaction on it. just like any other p2p network there may be peers by banks, government, shady people, normal people,... but the good thing that i understand about LN is that the relaying nodes don't know about the origin and destination of the transactions they receive, they just pass it along and know it doesn't belong to them.

That's certainly true, mate. I believe that the incentive inherent within LN nodes would contribute towards a more robust and decentralized system for the enjoyment of all. This is somewhat similar to Dash's masternodes feature, where individuals receive a reward if they're able to keep the node alive and running. On the other hand, Zencash has nearly the same proposition, where people running secure nodes are incentivized which has contributed to greater decentralization within the network.

If such model becomes successful in the LN, then without doubt it will become the most decentralized scalable solution to date. With Channel Factories, Watchtowers, Atomic Swaps, and more, the LN will make Bitcoin great again. Probably, this could be the end of altcoins as we know it, since Bitcoin would be capable of processing millions of TPS at near-free costs without much effort.

Nevertheless, the much-awaited LN will bring lots of excitement to Bitcoiners worldwide. Just my thoughts

Currently, it is much easier to take over the network since there aren't many channels. In the future, it will be more difficult for a single person to route most of the Lightning Network transactions because the number of existing nodes will be huge. If someone wanted to disrupt the network, they would have to offer incredibly small fees. Capital won't matter since multi-path payments may be available by that time. Recently, a large node has been shut down by its owner. It affected a few users but it wasn't disastrous.

Indeed it's decentralized and this is what we need right now especially transactions are taking too long. And with the lightning network transactions will be measured in milliseconds.

OP's concern is the node and lightning network depend on its underlying technology. The nodes are the one who will just confirm the transaction and it doesn't directly affect to lightning network to be a decentralized one.