Topic: Lightning Network, is it a good solution? (Read 677 times)

Şifreleme yöntemlerini tanımlamak gerekiyor.

Simetrik şifreleme -> Veriyi şifrelediğin anahtarı kullanarak şifreli veriyi çözme için yine aynı anahtarı kullandığın şireleme metodudur. >- AES, DES ..gibi
Asimterik şifreleme -> Veriyi iki anahtar ile şifreleyen şifreleyen ve çözebilen şifreleme method  u olarak düşünebilirsin.-- >> ECDSA , RSA ... gibi

I've seen different networks like Lumino and such which are similar in principle to Lightning network, I wonder, do all these face the same pros and cons or are these just particular to Lightning?

because those altcoins are not used for merchant services
you cant buy pizza using them altcoins making them useless

you do realise the basics right. that a transaction is only worthwhile if it has a purpose
or are you being spoonfed the stupid narative that btc is just an experiment it doesnt matter if it fails.
yep your friends have said that script so i expect you probably are gonna believe that

however btc is starting to go down that same route of not wanting people to buy things using btc and be just used as a gold vault for people to then play around with custodial notes on another network. measured in a non 8 decimal unit of measure.

but hey if you want to keep playing the 4 year old myth that 2mb-4mb is bad for the network. then why are you still kissing and not biting the ass of the devs that now think 4mb bloat is ok.. (when it suites their agenda)

atleast update your stupid scripts.
you cant argue that 2mb was bad for the network if now 4mb is acceptable.
so drop that myth that the debate was about hard drive bytes. it got debunked in 2017. the day the devs themselves allowed 4mb
your about 3 years out of date with that script. but you still keep pushing it.. atleast recognise that it got debunked the very day core said yes to 4mb weight

what you next have to recognise
a thing your not realising yet is the 4mb allowance of bloat is not actually 4mb of transaction scaling because they kept the implied 1mb base limit for majority of transaction data
meaning its less efficient use of data.
meaning. yep core are wasting more data for unproductive transaction utility

its only bloated scripts(witness/signatures) that are only for a specific set of transaction types.
if you think that loads of people love and want segwit. then read on. and surprise yourself
there is only one main reason why segwit addresses are used. because they 4x up the tx fee of legacy transactions.
take a look at how many USERS are using your beloved LN.
its not millions. its just a few thousand

oh.. by the way.
sipa is stil asking for donations in legacy address.
strange how he doesnt want donations on segwit addresses.. he is the segwit implementer after all

when a chef refuses to eat his own food. dont expect a nice meal

but yet when shown actual things like devs allowing 4mb bloat that debunks your 2mb is bad myth
when show that not everyone is even using segwit addresses
when shown that the adoption for LN is not huge for users. but large for custodians. you have to atleast start to see reality. and stop just kissing ass to particular companies/devs

...
and to pre empt your next script. because you already hinted it, and your just repeating doomad propaganda scripts
you probably going to double down and say 'if you dont like core control. go play with another network'
sorry but that game dont play with me
im sticking with btc. but gonna keep highlighting the ignorant people that want people off the network. and the controlling few that are not helping bitcoin scale (emphasis bitcoin(BTC) not other networks)

lol - BSV has highest txs count

and who says that with professional mining setup security goes down? Better DBs / infrastructure are run by many profs (for profit!)  than some funny toy-girls losing coins and wealth on LN and bills

Bigger blocks to scale on-chain has its own debate why it's not good for the network's security, franky1.


Reality? There's already two other "Bitcoin networks" that has hard forked to bigger blocks, BCH and BSV. Why aren't the people, "who actually want to use on-chain transactions WITHOUT huge fees", not using them?

Some people think that it's centralized because the transaction runs on a differenct chain. In my opinion it really is a good second layer solution to Bitcoin congesting transaction and we can see the effects can that the LN brought to the Blockchain network. The only disadvantage it has to me, is not so friendly environment and it's still has no proper GUI.

still laughing at the LN fangirl windfury.

people that actually want to use the BTC bitcoin blockchain without huge fee's. the people that dont want to be diverted to other networks.. windfury wants to call them 'centralists' and 'big blockers'

yet those that proposed ONCHAIN scaling.were satisfied with a 2mb block proposal.. without weighty scripts to bloat and decrease transactions.. thus actually allow a true 2x transaction growth

yet windfurys fanclub NEEDED 4mb for their other network divert. but without a 2x tx growth let alone 4x
making windfury the big blocker bloater of spammy scripts and less tx /block

yet those wanting the proposed ONCHAIN scaling. would have made more people to want to protect their funds on chain because they would have been using the chain regularly

yet windfurys fanclub NEEDS people to use lite clients and use custodians on another network. meaning centralising bitcoin while users play with something else

kinda funny how he doesnt even realise the reality
if less people are moving funds onchain. they have less need to secure the chain.
so advertising other networks that dont need to touch the blockchain for months. is more of a divert away from bitcoin. not a incentivise to secure bitcoin.

its just that simple

Maybe a stupid question. Wouldn't it be possible to include something like the LN into the BTC protocol? I feel that it's already difficult to convince people to create a BTC wallet...if we have to convince them to also open a LN wallet on top of the BTC we are doubling the obstacles to adoption.

Bitcoin is no longer become a payment system and a tool to sending money. Most people will choose an altcoin like Ripple or Matic which have a fast transaction feature and low fees per transaction.

Lightning Network, I was remember when the first time to know bitcoin exactly 2017 ago. I hope this system can be runned sooner at that time but now I have another concern of if especially for security issue. Lightning network will bring bitcoin become centralized not decentralized as we proud of it. So we don't need it anymore, yeah that is my wish as of now.

You also want that we should be thankful to you for teaching us about the real Bitcoin, BSV, and that we should start HODLING this wonderful coin, right?

https://twitter.com/andrespollan/status/1185455536084541441

I've used the Lightning Network before and it's extremely fast and efficient. It's still got a long ways to go in terms of adoption, availability, user friendliness ( the app I used, only available on android "eclair", is very non-user friendly, it takes some skill to learn how to operate it) but it's potential is so high.  I still have a load of questions about how it will all work when fully implemented, but it's promise is very real.

major con: It is already recon to work as a mixer, so no compliant adoption possible, that it intros a barrier into a very unsecure layer ,that is stupid -

Bitcoin just does all of that without any LN, ...  - on chain (version BSV shows it)

To the big blockers saying LN will compete in fee collection vs. miners. Is it OK for LN to compete now? Your 1sat/byte coffee-transactions won't be confirmed for another 7 days.

I've been touching myself over BTC for 7 or so years now. Not for a second has it occurred to me to get into lightning networks. I tried some test versions and none of them worked.

Channels, watch towers, routing. It's all gibberish to me. I'm going to need some major hand holding to consider it.

Of course most of us are not used to seeing things develop in real time like this. We arrived after Bitcoin was up and running. I expect in almost all other areas of life we use stuff oven ready from companies or that's already been battle tested for years by others.

Which means it someone else's problem and obsession for quite some time to come. Wake me up when it's done.

I have not used the Lightening Network before, although I have used a wallet that has Lightening Network, but you have to activate the Lightening Network feature before it works. It doesn't work in every wallet, only a few of them are carrying that feature.

I have not seen the need for it and I guess I'm okay with the normal Bitcoin transaction speed rate and that's why I don't bother myself about using it. And the way I see it, Lightening Network is not meant for everyone, unless you're a tech geek and you want to go beyond what's already created. I have not seen anyone that is against the lightening network, so I guess it's good, and I don't see anything wrong with it since the main purpose is to make things quick.

I see, bitcoin transactions all over the world is increasing and continuously growing. Lightning network could provide a solution and in simple explanation on how I understood it is that, it works like a telegram. In telegram app, we can send messages directly to our contacts in an instant, in bitcoin network, what we send needs to be confirmed but through lightning network, the time it takes for the transaction to be successful is less, as well as the transaction fee. It's similarity to telegram is that, it recognizes your contacts, or previously conducted transactions to make it easier for the network to find the shortest path between you and the person whom you want to send bitcoins to.

if you want to read more about it, you might visit https://cointelegraph.com/lightning-network-101/what-is-lightning-network-and-how-it-works

I know there are a lot of people who are against LN but Lightning network is very useful for me. This will make our BTC's future easier. I think the lightning network has taken BTC's technology a few steps further, because by using lightning network we can transaction instant, this has makes many of our tasks easier and faster. on the other hand, micro-payments are viable in lightning network, it is most helpful for those who do small project on online. On lightning network there are more functions for programming payment, this will make bitcoin easier for us.

Is this true? I guess such shitcoins fee isn't low if you compare the digit? It may be low in comparison with the price since price of the said shitcoins are too low. Moreover, such coins don't have enough tx comparing with bitcoin.

What's the security flaws you are talking about, some lights? I have little idea about the transparency though.

Yeah, people criticizing it conveniently ignore that LN is hardly what we'd call mature enough to be used by regular users like me. Really, to get to this stage being only 2 years old is pretty amazing in itself. Bitcoin didn't have this much traction in 2011, and we're still struggling to get majority of services onto Segwit (never mind native) so it should be perfectly normal to see LN get even less traction yet we're seeing a lot of positive signs.

My opinion is that the Lightning Network seemed like an exciting solution to the scalability problem which encompasses transaction fees and time as the consequences, but in the end it turned out to be an unsatisfactory solution. It's not easy to use, and some of those geeky enough to use it are against it due to centralization and ideology issues among other things. So while Bitcoin itself certainly needs a solution for small transactions, I don't think the LN is the future. I hope someone comes up with something better and actually usable.