Topic: Lightning Network records are booming (Read 866 times)

That's irrelevant. Channels based on commitment transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain are dependent on Bitcoin as part of the security model.


People like you! "Multi-signature contract" =/= "2-of-3 contract where LN factory holds 2 keys and can steal your coins"


What's your point? "Factories" don't "hand out payments" unilaterally. Updating channel state requires the signature of both parties in a bidirectional channel, otherwise the last state is settled to the blockchain. I don't see the problem you're pointing out here. Both parties can either agree to settle the channel, keep the channel open, or one side can unilaterally close the channel. 

Not having to broadcast every transaction to the blockchain is great!


That would be a bad thing if Lightning required trust or intermediaries. Since it doesn't, it lives up to Bitcoin's purpose. 

Like DooMAD pointed out, your argument boils down to this: "LN is too good, it makes Bitcoin look bad." That argument sucks.

Then if only the Bitcoin network was a centralized service that could efficiently propagate blocks and transactions from server to clients. But it is not, because it is a DECENTRALIZED BROADCAST network.

But who cares about decentralization right? Who cares about censorship-resistance.

banks are not third parties. they are second parties mascarading as third parties.
when you wire transfer or withdraw, you hand the bank the funds and then they move it on
LN is not a push to destination.. its a co-sign agreement

1. LN is not dependant on bitcoins network
LN nodes can still run without bitcoin network. they let litecoin users in vertcoin users. and other coins too..
so if there was not one single instance of a bitcoin node chainhashing a channel.. people can still use LN via other coins.

2. smart contracts are putting funds into a contract that requires more than one signature.
its about time some people do some independant research and not just skim the surface of promotional material they read

3. in the latest concept (not the outdated 2016 promotional over promising, under commiting material).
bitcoins are to be locked into factoriees(fortknx-esq elitist) contracts. and its the factories that hand out NON blockchain confirmed 'payments' to users. and then those users use those non-confirmed payments to open and close channels with a partner. and at settlement. the non-confirmed close session is handed back to a factory where by the factory aggregates the totals and the factory can:
a. sign off on either a broadcast back to a blockchain.
or
b.sign a fresh non-confirmed 'payment' to a user to open a fresh channel, without having to broadcast back to the blockchain

..
its this stage  3.b. that will play out as the "well bitcoin is heavy and expensive fe to confirm and slow to confirm so much better to not use bitcoins blockchain (the 18th century.. ("dont claim back your gold, here have some crisp fresh uncrinkled promissory notes and stay within the LN system, while we look after the gold)

dont get me wrong.. i understand the utopia, the dream, the convenience.. but look what happened to the "gold is a medium of exchange able to buy bread and coffee" in the 18th-21st century conversion period, due to having gold vaulted up by an elitist second key holder of the vault

LN is the same business model as 18th century banks. where barons set up banks 'for convenience'

4. when the whole 'atomic swap' / factory really takes off.. imagine the nodes.. requiring to monitor not only bitcoin but litecoin blockchains..
..
funny thing is the rhetoric of bitcoin cant scale because bitcoin blockchain too bloated.. yet LN's master nodes will be monitoring both...
oh and if you want to rebut that users will just want to run cell phone apps (which will be the case).. well they can run cellphone apps ONCHAIN..
and then those that are capable of monitoring 3 chains to be masternodes.. could easily just be bitcoin nodes of a scaled up bitcoin network without LN..

its all just a pre arranged roadmap to get people into LN and then notic that users sould probably atoically swp their bitcoin for litecoin if they ever decide to exit LN

5. the whole "factories help not need to broadcast back to a blockchain" makes the blockchain redundant to channels.. as people are trusting factories instead.
the whole point of blockchains/byzantine generals solution was that funds are confirmed and audited by a community. and rejected by such..
LN does not audit by community/reject transactions by such.
LN does not have fault tolerance by community each node can be edited independently to mess around with its channel partner and no community of auditors exist to help prevent that

The idea of paying less than one satoshi for a transaction is very appealing. These current fees when the price pumps can be even higher than those damned banks

This is not the only example of the development of cryptocurrency technologies and blockchain market. This industry continues to take root deep into the social part of our lives. Already even a mobile phone on the blockchain did.

LN does use the Bitcoin network. In fact, its security model completely depends on it. That's how it solves the Byzantine Generals' Problem, by settling to the blockchain in case of dishonest or unresponsive parties.

Banks are irrelevant here since LN uses smart contracts, not trusted third parties.

It will only take one big merchant like Overstock to get the ball rolling on Lightning Network adoption, like they did when Bitcoin was still virtually unknown. The developers should also look into some implementation that are more easy to use, than the current options on the table.

One of the reasons why things like Ledger Nano and Electrum became popular, was that it was easy to setup the wallet and that is why the current implementations are lacking. The developers are over engineering the basic needs of average computer users. 

This is good news to the crypto community. I saw in one presentation of tenx the real value of lightning network and the potential it could bring in terms of transaction. great to see this coming to fruition. 

Here's some independent research that concludes the Lightning Network is definitively picking up steam:

https://bitcoinvisuals.com/lightning

Franky, why are you so mad at a technology? I don't get it.

I don't think it would have been the end of the world had the Core devs ended up doubling the bitcoin block size, but since they didn't, a whole new wave of innovation has sprung forth, and if it helps bitcoin do its job, why not let it?

Of course its not perfect. Neither is bitcoin.

wrong.
LN will make people fall into the same FIAT trap as gold merchants in the 18th -20th century

but nice try pretending i think it will be fantastic/effective
people will end up locked into factory contracts that just circle funds within LN channels = bad
people will end up unlocking from factory contracts using altcoins because bitcoin devs are not scaling bitcoin network utility = bad

bitcoin can grow. but devs are not allowing it because its not in their roadmap=bad

gotta laugh how you and your chums love to twist things that im promoting and im saying LN is fantastic and effective

now go do some independent research, because you sound more and more like the same scripts your chums try to churn out.
or maybe atleast try having an independent thought and not play the same social games.. its not original

Maybe you should try taking your own advice if you want Lightning to "fizzle out".  At the moment, you seem to be doing a great job of promoting Lightning, even going so far as to claim that Lightning will be so effective that users won't want to use Bitcoin anymore. 

1. not using the bitcoin network.
2. thats what banks said about gold
3. LN payments dont solve the byzantine generals issue.
it might be worth you updating yourself with the issues of LN.
even the LN devs admit it has issues.
watch this.
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570
and also for further research look at the eltoo concept of factories(fortknox issuing unconfirmed off-chain (promissory notes) into peoples accounts(channels))

if anyone wants to promote LN. try to be atleast more open to honesty without all the utopian optimism of over promising
EG
LN is a separate network service for multiple coins to be locked and pegged into contracts to allow faster payments for people that want to do regular small purchases more often then a couple times a fortnight

4. i understand the optimism and the utopian dream. but diverting gold from being used hand to hand and instead insisting the future is banks and promissory notes
i understand the optimism and the utopian dream. but diverting bitcoin from being used peer to peer and instead insisting the future is smart contract locks with factories and offchain transactions of 12 decimals

but it is not helping make bitcoin stand out as the better network than say litecoin or other coins that do have more transaction throughput capacity per day

How does it dilute Bitcoin's utility? It can make micro-transactions long term viable, which adds a great deal of utility. Use Bitcoin for slower and more expensive but highly secure transactions. Use Lightning for cheap, instant and private transactions that still leverage Bitcoin's security for Byzantine fault tolerance.

What's not to like?

its not helping scale bitcoin though. its helping divert people away from the bitcoin network
its diluting away the utility of the bitcoin network

first of all. you are quoted here saying something that SUBTLY IMPLIES that i insist it is a bitcoin network(should your chums take your words out of context). .. which is not the first time i seen you trying to make out that i am the one advocating stuff.. when infact i am doing the opposite.
secondly many people do say its part of bitcoin with the "layer" buzzword. i am simply informing people to clarify to them that LN is SEPARATE.
EG coinbase is not a bitcoin layer. its a separate service/company that accepts multiple coins

blockchains dont scale linearly. bitcoins blockchain hard drive usage if all blocks were full would appear linear, because scaling is not happening. scaling would allow data/utility expansion to move away from a straight line. should real scaling occur onchain
oh and also. dont then say exponential like the old myth of "gigabytes by midnight".. scaling is not a zero or full only 2 options scenario
..
and also schnorr is not about helping scaling. infact its to try to avoid new bloated transaction features from reducing tx counts per block. thus not scaling up, but just trying to avoid reducing utility, while they add more bloated complex tx formats

the old myth of 'online games wont work. streaming live video wont work, because bandwidth'
maybe you should tell skype, applefactime, livestream, youtube, twitch, facebook messenger, and all other such services that deal with large amount of data. that they should not use their services as bandwidth is a problem(its not).
bitcoin uses far less bandwidth than online games and streaming media

pre millenion kodak had the ignorant mindset that digital media for photo storage cant scale..

home users that have bad internet suppliers dont need to be nods with 100 connections. they could set there node to only have a few connections, they would have a better experience that way.
EG its like someone taking a shower. the bandwidth myth is that people thing a shower has to be full pressure water supply or turn off the water supply.. because it will cost them alot on their water bill. they never thing to adjust the taps to just use less water while taking a shower
telling people that the future involves avoiding a shower and using water from a sink to flanel wash their privates is the future is not the right thing to be informing people

again because i know how this scripted propaganda is played out. its not a linear or exponential (server farm full on or nothing scenario). only two option debate.
there are multiple ways to scale bitcoin onchain without having to divert utility away from the network
as the misleading concept that scaling is full on or nothing is the same rhetoric that bankers done with gold in the 18th century 'its too heavy, lock up your gold with a trusted partner/service and use these promissory notes instead"

oh and dont rebuttal that blockchains couldnt scale due to the legacy linear sigops validation problem.(which still exists and remains unsolved even now)
solution was easy. dont let a block allow itself to be deemed full by having just 5 tx of sigop bloat.
reduce the maxtxsigops from being just a 5th of maxblocksigops
eg instead of maxblocksigops=80,000 maxtxsigops=maxblocksigops/5(16,000)
eg instead of maxblocksigops=80,000 maxtxsigops=maxblocksigops/1000(80)
then you will find people can still pay many others in one go without some malicious transactor filling a block with just 5 tx that take ages to verify under legacy conditions
and to pre-empt your rebuttal that segwit helps with this using witness scale factor to miss-count actual sigops of legacy by making legacy tx of say 4000 sigops appear as being 16,000 max ex sigops.
as i said it doesnt solve the issue of 5tx filling the block. infact the wishy wash code of misleading actual count by using witness scale factor makes it far easier to fill a block using just 4000 sigops
again solution to allow more transactions throughput per block can be solved by making maxtxsigops/1000 so that there is never a case where a block is deemed full with under 1000 tx included due to a "sigops attack"

Plus I believe no one is saying that IT IS "a Bitcoin network", like franky1 insists. Although we do need Bitcoins to open channels, and use the Lightning Network.


There is also improving propagation of blocks or transactions. Storage was never a big problem for on-chain scaling, bandwidth is.

We're not asking everybody in the world to use bitcoin for everything. There are things even faster than a starbucks gift card, like cash.

It makes much more sense to use for online transactions, especially when an inter-fiat conversion is going to ultimately take place. In that regard, bitcoin is doing just fine with or without the lightning network. But even if the lightning network does gain popularity and widespread use, that's not a valid reason to be angry about it. Its just a technology used by consenting parties, not some evil scheme to stray bitcoin from its wholesome roots.

generally speaking i believe that has always been the case with bitcoin itself. it is not easy to use. for example running a full node such as bitcoin core requires spending some time to learn how to do it first!
and it all comes down to GUI, with a good design it doesn't matter how complicated LN or anything else is, the GUI can simplify that. it is all about communicating with the user in a simplified way. but the problem has always been the developers spend so little time on that and always focus on the core of the applications (for good reasons too).

thanks

it's very true that LN is not a bitcoin network. it's interoperable with the bitcoin network, and that's what is important. this means it can be used to help scale bitcoin.

since the blockchain scales linearly, it can only be improved so much by optimizing things like transaction size. schnorr is one such method. but it provides very limited scale compared to things like LN.

LN is not a bitcoin network

what should be prioritised is scaling bitcoin. not locking bitcoins up and persuading people using alternative networks that are not decentralised blockchain audited/secured/utilised..
i guess people forget why blockchains are so unique and forget what satoshi solved when bitcoin a thing

500 bitcoins is rather negligible considering the total market cap.
Yes, BTC is for HODL-ers mostly and these are all the early enthusiasts who want to be part of history - like the pizza guy from 2010.
I'm not a huge believer in the long term success of LN, but I sure hope it does succeed regardless. Simplification of installation and configuration should be significantly prioritized at this point, otherwise it's not going to get better than that.