Topic: Lightning network stats: 111 BTC • 3.5K nodes • 12.0K channels - page 2. (Read 1855 times)

According to Lightning Network Info mainnet has reached:

85.77 BTC capacity ($572,702.59)
3,211 nodes
11,415 channels

Countdown to 1 million active channels: 988,585

According to Lightning Network Info mainnet has reached:

84.99 BTC capacity ($551,042.77)
3,196 nodes
11,313 channels

Countdown to 1 million active channels: 988,687

According to Lightning Network Info mainnet has reached:

85.52 BTC capacity ($551,042.77)
3,186 nodes
11,378 channels

Countdown to 1 million active channels: 988,622

According to Lightning Network Info mainnet has reached:

85.46 BTC capacity ($545,185.26)
3,177nodes
11,357 channels

Countdown to 1 million active channels: 988,643

Each day Bitcoin grows closer and closer to the main stream.  It will not be long now until Bitcoin reaches the TPS that we need to go live across the worlds population.  Very exciting tech developments. 

According to Lightning Network Info mainnet has reached:

84.17 BTC capacity ($545,925.62)
3,165 nodes
11,233 channels

Countdown to 1 million active channels: 988,767

I remember many who said that this will solve the problem with the scalability of bitcoin, but for some reason it does not add the price of bitcoin

According to Lightning Network Info mainnet has reached:

84.01 BTC capacity ($540,773.64)
3,143 nodes
11,182 channels

Countdown to 1 million active channels: 988,818

According to Lightning Network Info mainnet has reached:

83.85 BTC capacity ($528,840.00)
3,125 nodes
11,113 channels

Countdown to 1 million active channels: 988,887

According to Lightning Network Info mainnet has reached:

82.78 BTC capacity ($498,479.68)
3,108 nodes
11,142 channels

Countdown to 1 million active channels: 988,858

According to Lightning Network Info mainnet has reached:

80.98 BTC capacity ($522,521.44)
3,100 nodes
11,097 channels

Countdown to 1 million active channels: 988,903

The statistics I never believed in them, maybe they have adjusted and how they do the statistical survey how no one knows

According to Lightning Network Info mainnet has reached:

95.27 BTC capacity ($602,304.64)
3,090 nodes
11,145 channels

Countdown to 1 million active channels: 988,855

Thank you for your explanation! The factory concept is new to me, so I have to research.
The situation that you suggested looks like a special case and for certain in due course, there will be a decision of this problem.

I'm very interested in your comparison of LN nodes (factories) with bank branches and between them, there is one very significant difference IMHO.

Banks:
Yes, they agree to pay for my coffee and taxi, but only under the condition of KYC and the opportunity to challenge my property in court.
What happens if I offer my BTC as collateral?
- they will refuse, even if I pass the KYC and AML
Why?
- simply because they will not be able to take away my BTC, even by a court decision

Lightning Network Hubs:
Ready to pay for my coffee and taxi using BTC as collateral (the very simplified essence of the LN)
No KYC, no AML.

I agree LN is more centralized then BTC network. But it does not go to any comparison with the existing banking system in which I, as a matter of fact, do not own anything.

Keep in mind that LN is still in beta, and I personally don't want to see any big merchants and mass adoption now, because if there are some nasty bugs that will make people users lose money, it will negatively reflect on the whole project for a long time, like it happens with Ethereum and its bugged wallets. It's clear that Lightning developers are working very hard and are making great progress, so we should give them time instead of constantly asking when it will be ready and trying to hurry them up.

According to Lightning Network Info mainnet has reached:

95.03 BTC capacity ($578,416.76)
3,081 nodes
11,209 channels

Countdown to 1 million active channels: 988,791

the argument to go in the direction of LN was because innovating bitcoin blockchain will cause centralisation.. but.. LN WILL cause centralisation.
as you said. ud have your phones app make channels with payment gatways that will monitor your channels and be hubs to the main merchants.

on bitcoins onchain you can simply turn your phone on sign a tx with your privkey and send it to whomever whenever without other peoples consent.. thats the whole point of cryptocurrency as oppose to fiat

in LN. you cannot just turn your device on push a paymnt out and turn device off in LN in LNs old 2016 concept.

you have to have pre set up channels that for the next 2 months will hve a good high chance of being online for 2 months to the services (starbucks/taxi) you want. and you have to fund those channels and lock those funds to those channel for them 2 months.

EG imagine you think you will spend $3 a day for 2 months on coffee. and $20 a day on taxi
(total funds locked for 2 months. c:$180 t:$1200)

now imagine you only have 2 channels. one to a hub that manages starbucks and another that manages taxi

starbucks [x - y] coinbase [$0 - $180] you [1200-0] bitpay [a -b] taxi

so you take a taxi into town
starbucks [x - y] coinbase [$0 - $180] you [1190-10] bitpay [a-10 -b+10] taxi

so you buy a coffee
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$3 - $177] you [1190-10] bitpay [a-10 -b+10] taxi

so do whatever else during the day and then take taxi home
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$3 - $177] you [1180-20] bitpay [a-20 -b+20] taxi

lets imagine bitpay went offline
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$3 - $177] you

you now only have $177 available. you can hope that coinbase has a route to taxi via other means.. but your still stuck with only playing with $177
your $1180 is still locked for 59 days(plus 8hours-5business day maturity revoke period).

...
now here is the 2018 concept involving factories
lets reset the funds.. but use the more centralised 2018 concept
you know your going to spend $1380 for coffee and taxi for the next 60 days
so you onchain your funds into a Barry silbert DCG.co factory. knowing their subsiduaries are coinbase and bitpay
so you fund DCG.co factory and request the factory route to coinbase and bitpay to pay you the amounts
                                 [$0-$180] DCG.co [$1200-0]
                              /                                          \
starbucks [x - y] coinbase [not open] you [not open] bitpay [a -b] taxi

                                [$180-$0] DCG.co [$0-$1200]
                              /                                          \
starbucks [x - y] coinbase [$180 -$0] you [$0-$1200] bitpay [a -b] taxi

                                [$180-$0] DCG.co [$0-$1200]
                              /                                          \
starbucks [x - y] coinbase [$0 -$180] you [$1200-$0] bitpay [a -b] taxi

so now you are at the state before buying your first taxi into town to buy first coffee.. so now you can pretend DCG.co doesnt exist
now if bitpay went offline. because the channel setup is not a onchain locked funds of $1180 after first days travel. you can close the channel and then those funds dont go back to you onchain. they go back to the factory where you request the factory funds coinbase and cinbase funds you

                                        [$180-$0] DCG.co [$1180-$20]  - (bitpay keps the $20)
                                       /                                          \
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$3 - $177] you [not open] bitpay [a-20 -b+20] taxi

                                        [$180-$1180] DCG.co [$0-$20]
                                       /                                          \
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$3 - $177] you [not open] bitpay [a-20 -b+20] taxi

                                             [$1360-$0] DCG.co [$0-$20]
                                          /                                          \
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$1183 - $177] you [not open] bitpay [a-20 -b+20] taxi

                                             [$1360-$0] DCG.co [$0-$20]
                                          /                                          \
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$3 - $1357] you [not open] bitpay [a-20 -b+20] taxi

...
all of which is so you have 'convenience' ... but. your $1380 is locked into DCG.co for 2 months. and have to rely on dcg, coinbase and bitpay to stay online and sign EVERY payment you want to send

EVERY PAYMENT
which is no better than the fiat banking system.
hubs become the 'bank branches' factories become the bank HQ
and you then become reliant on other parties having to authorise movements of funds you THOUGHT you had full control of bt no longer do in LN

bitcoin and crypto currency was invented to avoid using services that require authorisation by other parties.
bitcoins onchain innovation has been stifled and stagnated to suggest the future is to go back to the old way things worked. purely for "convenience"

According to Lightning Network Info mainnet has reached:

95.77 BTC capacity ($606,327.23)
3,067 nodes
11,186 channels

Countdown to 1 million active channels: 988,814

Wow, the first time I see such a full and detailed response!


Yes, but doesn't the hub's network solve this problem?

As an ordinary user, I shouldn't create a channel with Starbucks and a taxi service. It'll be enough just a couple of channels with hubs which contact all possible service providers.

And even if one of the hubs lies under the DDoS attack or offline for any other reason, I'll just use the other hub this time.

I think that I'm weak enough in technology, so I'll be very grateful if you tell me where I'm wrong.

devs are now seeing the pitfalls. flaws and broken promises.

to receive funds people need to keep their channel online. this has come to a debate about using servers and lightwallets so people can use their phones as the payment method without needing to carry a laptop/desktop around to buy coffee on a full node. and to allow the server to manage the channel while people sleep or have their phone switched off/on charge/airplane mode/out of signal range
summary of devs: it will be more centralised than previously promised, but convenience comes at a cost

because transactions are not relayed/audited/verified by the community. and only the counterparty(s) in the channel check and sign. there are ways for malicious tweaking to occur. and unless people are checking the raw tx data of what they are contracting to. its much like signing a contract without reading the small print. thus third parties will play a bigger part in it and also KYC.
summary of devs: by avoiding blockchain there is no community consensus. thus a KYC system may need to be added for personal due diligence and to help avoid phishing and other risks of party to party malicious acts

with network stats showing that if everyone just has 2 channels open (one inbound one outbound) where the network looks like a long snake of a large single route. if the head of the snake wants to make a payment to the tail. in a 1000 node network is 1000 agreements and micro fee's to get the payment through which if someone at the stomach goes off line everyone is effected. so a average 2 channel per node is dangerous and expensive for all involved.
the average for 100 nodes is 4 channels which equates to upto 20 agreements/microfee's but offers more than one route
the average for 1000 nodes should be more around the 14 channel aim(of 3-4 hops) to keep the agreements/microfee's below 64 'hops'(2-4 channels)
summary of devs: the more people that join. the more hops are needed or the more channels per node are needed. so the hop model doesnt work without central hubs of multiple channels or each node having multiple channels to be well connected. we see things moving more towards the central hub manager model as it is more convenient than users setting up multiple channels

stats already show that although the 'contracts' are set for 2 months+ average, people will not keep their devices on 24hours/71days.
yes out of LN's 3k nodes most do. but these are majority the devs/merchants. not regular home users
EG beta game testers spend days/weeks jumping at the same wall, testing every vector. but regular users spend seconds jumping at a wall and only a couple hours before getting bored
as you can see by bitcoins mainnet.
with millions of bitcoin users there are only a dozen thousand nodes on all the time most of which are merchants/devs. but the mass majority do not stay on for months on end(under 1%)
this can cause issues. especially around node update releases where it ends up that(for full nodes) whole blockchains need to be re synced/indexed offering a malicious timed attack for some users to exploit while their counterparty is asleep. on vacation, at work or re-indexing their mainnet node due to an update, thus unable to monitor broadcasts.
summary of devs: requirement to extend the revocation period by days instead of hours or cencentrate on server management for convenience

some merchants will not want to have their internet connections occupied by 8000-1million channels direct with their customers nodes. and having to secure the connection/monitor such amount of channels day and night. so they will use third party node services to become hubs around the merchant where the hub takes all the strain and the merchant just has a couple 'trusted' service gateways it connects to.
summary of devs. like how cloudflare or bitpay take the brunt of customer demand to reduce risk of loss of funds or even DDoS the end merchant/site

there are many other risks/factors too(hyips/ponzis). although mainnet is a push network. thus those involved in HYIP/Ponzi schemes are themselves handing funds into these schemes(their own fault). but with LN's routing autopilot. hyip/ponzi's can loop random people in and extract funds out of people without them realising they have been looted via a ponzi just by the routing autopilot trick.

dont get me wrong. LN has got a niche market for a certain userbase. but it is not the solution for everyone.
where visa stats show visa is used under 90 times in 2 months per user.
having to set up 14+ channels (28 onchain transactions to open and close)  means people on average would only do 3 LN payments per onchain tx. but when the network surpasses just a few thousand nodes and more channels per node are required EG 28 channels(56 onchan tx) for 1-2 tx per channel
under 45 channels then its a 1:1 real life usage and normal people see no point in pre-planning 2 months of spending habits and setting up 45 channels when they can just send funds to the merchant onchain as and when they please at the same overall cost but without the pre planning.

lastly although LN is promised as the cheap solution. thats just the bait. come on how oftn do you see any service, whether it be train rail, bus, postage, theme park queue.. where a faster service is cheaper. we all know the market will flip where the fasters service will get expnsive de to convenience and the old slow confirmation onchain would then be still expensive but cheaper than LN, once the dynamics change due to real life consequences