Topic: Lightning Network Discussion Thread - page 20. (Read 29772 times)

Thanks, I can sleep better now.

I made a mistake in the merit I sent. I sent to much, it was supossed to be 1. Haha.

Can you give us at least a flavor of how you propose to achieve on chain scalability?

Well I hope you do solve "the big enchalada". While you work on that though the rest of us can be doing lightning payments that are super cheap super fast and don't really negatively impact the bitcoin that we already had in any way.

I'm pretty sure that's right.

But the "fractional reserve banking" system, and/or derivatives will be isolated only in the "next generation" payment processors' layer correct? But not on the Lightning Network?

If I mentioned any of that in the WO thread, I'd probably get labeled a bcash shill 

What is your actual position anunymint? Are you a bcash troll? Just anti crypto currency? Pro fiat fractional reserve banking? Pro gold and silver bullion? I have a taste of some of the things you stand against but no idea what you sand for.

---

Interesting perspective. +Merit

I'll go so far as to say LN is virtually useless as an end-user protocol. It provides the technological base for the payment processors of the future. Some have compared it to the TCP/IP protocol. The analogy is:
Internet -> Bitcoin
TCP/IP -> Lightning Network
World Wide Web -> Layer 3

Anyway, the next generation of payment processors will be built atop LN, will absorb all risk associated with LN, and will provide users a foolproof layer 3 solution. And possibly fractional reserve banking and derivatives.

I think the only solution here is to have the LN be similarly easy to use as those centralized services. That way people don't need to necessarily understand all of the differences, they can just understand that people who know more than they do are telling them that this is the better way to do it and since both options are similarly simple to use they will take the word of the people who know more than they do.

It may not end up playing out that way. Bitcoin could become centralized like gold did in the past for exactly the reasons you and aununy are talking about. But if it does there will still always be cooler more underground projects to get interested in. Do you suppose the type of people who are using monero are the type of people who would hand over their private keys to a bank? I don't thinks so

---

Once LN is chugging along nicely we will just increase the block size. The only reason that people like me were resistant to block size increases is that people were pretending like it was a solution that it wasn't and planning on using it as a crutch to avoid actually addressing the real problem. Once the resistance to bigger blocks put the fire under everyone's ass that they needed to actually develop a REAL solution, and they actually rolled out that solution, there is no reason at all why we can not go back and re explore the idea of increasing the block size. That was always the position of people on my side of the argument. It was never some fanatical opposition to bigger blocks on principle. It was just a statement to all of the people who thought we were going to solve the scaling problem by just increasing block size as big as was necessary, that they could piss off, which they did, over to btrash, and good riddance.

I think the way that you have to think about this problem is from the other direction. You have to think in terms of need and what is required to serve that need. So kinda like this: Lets say everyone on the planet wants to use LN. That's 7 billion people. I'm going to make a wild stab and say that they may need 3 on chain transactions per year each. I think that is a pretty generous assumption. 1 every 10 years could be enough. The average transaction is about 250 bytes but lets double that to 500 because transactions to open a payment channel are probably bigger I'm sure. Lets also assume that on chain scaling measures only decrease the total size of transactions by half though between now and this nebulous point in the future. Ok so that comes out to 100mb per block being required. So with those assumptions if the block size was significantly less than 100mb your claim would probably be true and if it was 100mb or higher it would probably be false. The specific values aren't important, you can plug in your own, just wanted to point out the different way of thinking about the problem.

---

Sure, sure, I only put 20 dollars on there myself. If I lose it I've had more than 20 dollars worth of fun with it already.

Well I will surely try the app with a few bits but I will wait for LN to get out of the development stage completely and become free from any bugs and errors because I am really not into losing my money. Moreover, I am really sorry but I am never going to trust a new app with merely 1000 downloads so far with my funds. So will wait for app to grow a bit to organic users.
I have found Samourai to be a pretty useful app for android but I think I will be much more happier if Electrum comes in with a better version of their android app. I mean it sucks when you compare it with the desktop version which is just too good. The mobile version suffers a whole lot of problems.

Moreover, yes I think you are right mass adoption can only be done if forget about price variation. But my problem here is that if the whale play goes on mass adoption will become difficult because people will always be afraid about what they are holding or spending.


That's true, you still have to broadcast a transaction to open and close the channel, but it's paying off if you are often paying some bitcoins to a specific service (instant and cheap transactions). There is a service which offers conversion from LN to on-chain funds and vice-versa without reopening a channel. As far as I remember, there is an idea which can help us to lower the size of the initial transactions - Schnorr signatures, new BIP related to this has been recently released. You should also check out Channel Factories.

Opened channels do not have any impact on the Bitcoin Network beside coins being locked up in multisig addresses.