Topic: Is the Lightning Network centralized? - page 11. (Read 1981 times)

Were you born that stupid or do you have to work at it?  

https://coinidol.com/bitcoin-exchanges-must-comply-with-us-laws/

https://kyc360.com/article/compliance-kyc-link-exchanges-banks-mass-adoption-bitcoin/



** If your hub processes a transaction where you send LN funds overseas and at the end ,
when those LN funds are redeem for bitcoin and those bitcoins are exchanged to fiat or physical items,
then you just became a money launder according to US Law. **
Do I agree with this insane authority the world governments have given themselves , hell no,
but I do recognize it will get someone throw in jail for ignoring them, answer is yes.

Next you say, you hide your IP address, with tor.
Tor has been compromised for years, the US Navy was the original designers and only released it after realizing all of the ways to bypass it.
But good luck trying.  
You should start looking for a lawyer now and start a payment plan for when they bust up in your living room.
 

FYI:
That other LN hub might be the FBI recording your transactions for their appending arrest warrant.
They do shit like that all of the time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/us/more-federal-agencies-are-using-undercover-operations.html

That's certainly true, mate. LN can increase in fees if usage increases over time. It'll be the same way as before, with the block size limitation. However, in terms of centralization, then it is up to question, since such solution (Lightning Network) is a layer-two solution which doesn't affect Bitcoin's main chain. Even if LN were to fail, Bitcoin's main chain will still work accordingly, in a decentralized fashion.

Therefore, I would consider the Lightning Network a semi-decentralized solution, since it doesn't affect Bitcoin's decentralization (as its separate from the main chain), but it has some level of centralization in the way channels are opened and closed, mostly by wealthy individuals. There could be some point where banks, and big exchanges will be capable of opening/closing channels, making the Lightning Network a system of trust. This might change though, if people choose other channels and/or LN nodes that are operated by individuals instead of big corporations, or financial institutions. Despite this, it will also be possible to transact on Bitcoin's main chain, for further security.

One big question that I have, is how would the Lightning Network be as secure as Bitcoin's main chain, considering it's an off-chain solution? I think that it could be easy for a hacker to easily perform double-spending on LN, right? This has brought up a lot of confusion to me, and I'm still trying to figure it out when reading the whitepaper.



Yeah. Having a huge block size is very bad for any cryptocurrency nowadays. It increases the level of spam attacks on the network and increases centralization as storage and bandwidth costs increase over time. As such, less nodes would be able to maintain the network, as most people won't be able to cover such high costs. The real deal, as you said earlier, is the verification process. Since the blockchain requires every single node available on the network, to process every transaction, it adds a lot of data, making it impractical to scale, especially with a huge block size like 32mb.

While Bitcoin Cash's 32mb blocks hasn't been filled yet, they could in the future, making this cryptocurrency extremely centralized in contrast to the original Bitcoin. Therefore, even if Bitcoin's block size is extremely limited, it's a good thing since it makes spam attacks expensive and allows Bitcoin to stay as decentralized as possible. Just my opinion

You sound like a flat-earther or anti-vaxxer.  Tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist type.  Repeating the same unfounded, delusional, reductive reasoning because you have no substantiative arguments.  You can say it as many times as you like, but it's no more likely to occur than KYC/AML for on-chain nodes.  You're still enabling payments to be processed by validating them if you run a full node.  In which case, BCH will come to an end before LN, because LN has more nodes than BCH and will be more difficult to pursue.  Clearly every single person running a Lightning node right now thinks you're talking nonsense, otherwise they wouldn't be running one.

Reports suggest that something like 20% of all internet activity is related to piracy and no regulators have managed to stop that yet.  They'll have the same or less success with Lightning, since I get the impression that torrenting is easier to monitor than the act of signing transactions is.  If you torrent without a proxy or VPN, there are websites that can tell you how many files you've downloaded, but there's no way of recording how many Lightning transactions you've sent or received, because that information isn't public.  I wish the regulators the best of luck, they're going to need it.



And in the equally unlikely scenario they criminalise being an absolute imbecile on the internet, we won't even do that for you.

LN is a trojan horse for the BTC community
my opinion is that will became centralized, like nowdays classic banks

LOL,
You don't read much about the US Laws , do you?

Be sure to post what prison, they send you too and I will mail you a cake with a file in it.  

And no it won't matter if you are not a US Citizen, if the US Gov can force the Swiss banks to comply, your resistance will be meager at best.
Good Luck with that LN hub.  

FYI:
When you ask your Cell Mate's Name and he says Ben Over, that is not his name!  

What "LN hubs"? We have Bitcoin wallet services like blockchain.info that do not require their users to verify their identities. Plus what if I run a Lightning node and many users happen to connect to me? "I will not enforce AML/KYC" will be my LN node name. Hahaha.


You and your conspiracy theories again. Not increasing the block size is a design decision to keep node requirements minimal to maintain decentralization. But go ahead and enjoy your 32mb block size that nobody uses. Dogecoin has more transactions than Bitcoin Cash. Hahaha.

Plus I hope those blocks become full just to see how centralizing Bitcoin Cash is. It will come to a point that very few people can run a Bitcoin Cash node because not all people are willing to upgrade their hardware.

To have enough excess capacity for next few years.

And right, the max BS might be gone soon.

It looks like you are going to just have to live with the fact the developers writing Bitcoin Cash Code are smarter than you about what their network can or can't handle.

Like I said earlier , feel free to spam their network and try and prove them wrong.  

---

You really need to read up on other coins.
Many other coins do not allow variable transaction fees.  (That is the crux of the problem.)
Your Bitcoin Core coin variable fees and limited onchain block space is what allowed the months of spamming that raised transaction fees up to ~$40 last year.

Many Peercoin based Proof of Stake coins delete all transaction fees, completely removing spamming as an incentive.
Also any coin that has a fixed transaction fee negates any reason to spam for the profit of increasing the fee structure.
Proof of Stake coins with these features are totally resistant to pathetic spam attacks.

Aside from the above, Bitcoin Cash solution was to have a large enough capacity that spam attack just wasted an attacker's funds, which works as only once was a spam attack even attempted. By having plenty of onchain capacity , they negated any reason for someone to try a spam attack.

Feel Free to run your own spam attack on any proof of stake coin or bitcoin cash, their design will enlighten you as you EPIC FAIL in the attempt.  


FYI:
LN will allow Variable Fees , it will be interesting to see if someone figures out a way to use DDOS attacks or something else as a way to jack up their variable fee structure.

spam is all about incentive. without it, the spam won't happen but that doesn't mean it is not a concern for others as well. take 51% attack for example. there are shitcoins out there with such as low hashrate that you can attack then with a tiny altcoin mining rig and wipe out their blocks. but the price of these shticoins is so low that it doesn't give you the incentive to do it. you'll get less than 1 satoshi per coin for many of them!!! this doesn't mean these coins are protected against 51% attack it just means nobody cares enough to attack them.

same goes with spam, nobody gains anything by spamming a shitcoin with empty blocks. but many will benefit from spamming bitcoin even if the blocks were empty. from miners who earn a shitload of money to altcoins who pump their shitcoin because bitcoin fees go up. you seem to have forgotten that in 2017 when Dash was starting to pump with the motto "Dash will replace bitcoin" they were raising money on their forum to spam attack bitcoin with it. nobody ever says "Dash will replace bitcoin cash"!

alot of LN fans will say "LN is not centralised. its like the SWIFT wire transfer network where its not just one bank office/hq. but multiple banks and account holders.."

but they forget users have to link to others and lock funds in with others. where that other party has to agree on users payments (just like how banks work)
and after studying and running scenarios of usability. hubs(bank branches) start to form as oppose to a user having 4-8 independant channels with each channel going to each service.

and so just like everyone knows all the banks are in it togthr to scrw customers over.. these hubs are all in it to hold all the reserves between them and scalp the users linked to them.

its simple 'degre's of separation' theory
just try doing the math of

4 to the power of 4 = 256 (not even enough for a school yearbook of people) 4 channels per person 4 hops end to end

8 to the power of 8 = 16,777,216 (small island/city population) meaning if all users had 8 channels. it take upto 8 'hops' to get end to end

9 to the power of 9 = 387,420,489 (about the populations of america) 9 channels per person 9 hops end to end

10 to the power of 10  = 10,000,000,000 (world population) 10 channels per person 10 hops end to end

but f you think of a bank HQ that works in 2000 regions. and those regions have 2000 bank branches each and each of those bank branches served 2000 users... thats 8billion users that can reach each othr in 3 hops and the users only need 1 channel to their bank branch

would you prerfer to split your $200 spend across 10 channels. where instantly $2 of your $20 per channel is reserved for closing channel. and it then costing you upto 10millisats(10x1milisat route fee) to get end to end
or
knowing you can fully spend $200 in one go. and the risk of random users going off line is less due to uyou using reliable hubs(bank branches)
would you prerfer to keep your $200 spend in 1 channel. where instantly $2 of your $200 is reserved for closing channel. and it then costing you upto 3millisats(2x1milisat route fee) to get end to end

imaginiing channels
users who may budget they only want to spend $50 a week ($200 a month) will NOT want to put their $200 into 4 channels incase one of the route to a peer goes offline. because that $50 gets locked or cost them on unchain fee to get it out again.

users will end u choosing a hub (bank branch) to connect to and just throw the whole $200 in knowing its just 1 onchain fee they will need to worry about if they need to exit. and decide a hub is less likely to go off line than random users.

again users will not want to set up multiple channels. so the hop model of multiple routes wont work.
(its worth people running scenarios, it helps)
 and the HUB (bank branch) model begins to shine.

take youe own bank account. would you prefer your wages going into one account and then using that account to pay all your bills. or have 8 bank accounts and when you get paid you then have to pay a wire transfer(onchain fe) to then redistribute ur salary into 8 accounts dedicated to each paying a bill.and then knowing if something goes wrong with bing unable to pay a bill it then costs you another onchain fee to move funds again.. most people end up for convenience just throwing it all into one well connected reourse and letting them sign have joint control of your funds
.. this is how banks formed in the first place
even now looking at the LN network overview you can already se many users with 1-2 channels. not 4-8 channels.. and those 1-2 channls are betwen hubs in most cases.. and the hubs that have way way more than 8 connections. are what will bcome the new bank branches.

After studying a bit on google about lightning Network, it appears centralized to me.

even before the 1mb that satoshi put in during 2010. satoshi had a 32mb limit. this was called the "message size limit"
the reason for 32mb was due to technical stuff outside of blockchain stuff. and more about the internet technical issues

ill leave you to google the technicals but in short its easier to send data in clumps of under 32mb due to increased risk of packet/data loss which can cause propogation delays because so many packets would need to be checked and re sent the bigger the file gets

again this was not a bitcoin/blockchain limitation. it was a internet data transmission procaution to reduce delay, double transmission and other issues.
this is why you see so many image upload services, microsoft word upload, email attachments that have 32mb limits (if they want superfast service withleast chances of data retransmission)

but as i said ill leave you to google the technicals
bigger files are possible but then it requires extra code to double check stuff and need more code to rebuild lost packets etc. so it was simpler to just avoid going that high, to kep the system efficient.

The hope would be that, as adoption increases, real-world use cases would become more prevalent on Lightning.  Retailers providing tangible goods and services would ideally start to see as much traffic as exchanges.  But obviously we'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

I'd say it's not that uncommon for most of our daily financial transactions to be with businesses rather than other individuals, so it's only natural that most of the money will flow in a similar fashion in Bitcoin as it becomes more mainstream.

The "centralization" that most people talk about is really about limiting who can effectively (and profitably) participate. Lightning Network channels will naturally tend to form along the paths of economic activity. If you assume (as I do) that most economic activity in Bitcoin today is from individuals to large Bitcoin businesses (mostly exchanges), then you should further assume that most channels will be between users and those very same large businesses.

You can call the centralization if you wish---but it is not a centralization of Lightning's making; it is a centralization that already exists for Bitcoin users.

You might be missing the point just a little bit.  Sure, the network will readily cope with the occasional large block, mostly because all the others are so proportionately tiny.  But if they were to produce the maximum size block every single block, that's where you might find some issues creeping in.  That's when some of the people trying to run full nodes will suddenly decide that's no longer an option.  That's when the claims that BCH is centralised start to gain a bit of credibility.  For the record, I don't think BCH is centralised, just that it has a greater potential to move in that direction.



So why have the 32MB limit?  Why not remove it altogether?  It seems largely symbolic at this stage, doesn't it?

yep and segwit addresses BC1q were not designed as a sole btc feature.
LN was not designed as a sole btc feature

the bc1q addresses were designed to identify btc tx's when the bankers add their hyper ledger system to LN so that they can tell the difference between a btc address and their atomically swappable fiat coins.

bankers running the hubs 'for convenience of users' is already in the works.

even the layout of hubs is the same network layout as bank branches. the co-signing requirement is the same as bankers authorised payments.

Yes, I speak with a lot of bankers about Bitcoin and LN. They always identify LN as most interesting to enter this market since it is typical their business. Get prepared that if it is a thing, small and medium entities will not long exist.

Regulation is a thing here as well, so think of what bigger entities will pull to get smaller ones out of markets.

so your worry about spam is empty

how can you argu about spam. then argue there is no spam because blocks are empty.
whats next worry that cars can b overcrowded because you sen a comedy clip of 30 clowns walking out of a mini car.. but then argue that cars should only have a drivers seat because most of the time thers only one person per car.

hint: an near empty block of 0.2mb does not lock off 32mb of hard drive space. it just uses 0.2mb of hard drive space. but allows the rules of allowing mor transactions in without 2 years of debate.

its better to have 32mb limit and not need it. than to have 1mb limit and argue for 2 years how to expand it
its better to 4 seat car and not need it. than to have 1seat car and argue for 2 years how to upgrade the car

take you pc. if you only intend to store 1 jpeg image on the PC world you specifically ask a PC retailer for a pc with a hard drive that only stores the operating system+1jpeg. or woul you want a hard drive that has the capacity for alot more knowing you may needd more in the future, and dont want 2 years of hassle arguing about upgrading your pc.

funny part is any coin, even btc can prevent spam. simply by having a fee priority formulae re-established. that makes it harder/more expensive to spend fresh utxo that have not matured for long(low coinage/confirm count=expensive), that alone will solve people trying to churn through transactions by spending them as son as they are confirmed.

but anyway. btc has stagnated onchain. and all devs care about is LN so that they can grab peoples BTC using punishments and exsivvive onchain fee's to tempt them not to leave LN until thir channel is empty. or get kicked to a crap coin so the hubs can get all the btc.
typical banker mindset

i still laugh at the above.
but nice wordplay windfury. it seems your indocrination into that group has taught you how to twist words.

adam back paid his devs to PREVENT increasing the legacy blocksize to satisfy HIS groups political agenda

only problem is you slipped up. how can bitcoin core not increase the blocksize if increasing it is some groups aganda..
remember you pretense that bitcoin core doesnt control anything. so how can they prevent it

this is where windfury has to admit core (adam backs paid devs) do have control.
just check out bitcoin.org/en/download   oh look core and only core is mentioned.
(notice hypocrisy yet)