Topic: Lightning Network VS SegWit2Mb(S2X) (Read 631 times)
Is it possible to fork bitcoin into lets say side chains that are swappable and pegged at a 1 to 1 bitcoin rate. And to utilize these for blockchain space for micro transactions?
It seems for me that lightning network makes bitcoin more centralized. I do not like this. How do you think?
I agree, there will be a little centralization, but LN is optional, whereas big block sizes, are not. Bigger blocks would lead to giant nodes which would only be able to run on servers, and this would be mandatory. But LN is not mandatory, you can choose to use it or not.
And since most people will move small quantities, they will opt for it, which will unclog the mined network, thus decreasing fees.
So when will LN potentially be rolled out?
They are running testnet right now and doing something with altcointn right now.Just look:
https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/949434763474948096
I'm downloading the Android LN app and going to play around with it.
So when will LN potentially be rolled out?
They are running testnet right now and doing something with altcointn right now.Just look:
https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/949434763474948096
Which one will be the solution to the bitcoin scalability problem (Dream of instant payments with low fees)?
Lightning Network: off-chain protocol
It would feature a P2P system for making micropayments of digital cryptocurrency through a scale-free network of bidirectional payment channels without delegating custody of funds or trust to third parties.[1]
SegWit2x: block size limit
was a failed contentious hardfork outlined in the New York Agreement that intended to double the block size limit. The hardfork has been denounced as an attempt made by CEOs and owners of large Bitcoin businesses to introduce changes to the currency's protocol and development cycle with ulterior motives.[2]
Of course it's LN, the off-chain solution. Block size limit will always be reached while the transactions increase. But the ASIC company will not like the LN solution because that will reduce their profit.
Bolded is not necessarily true. If transactions scale exponentially in LN companies serving blockchain users would see healthy use and growth, but not exponential. And the 180,000 backlog of transactions would go away.
Yes there were ulterior motives in each of the hard forks, and yes the most disturbing one was the NY Agreement.
So when will LN potentially be rolled out?
It seems for me that lightning network makes bitcoin more centralized. I do not like this. How do you think?
You are absolutely wrong on the contrary I think it might give it some room to be decentralized again by actually snatching off the power to hike fees from the hands of miners. Moreover its still ambiguous that how much it will reduce fees as to what extent it will affect the network so we can't really comment upon its nature. Totally agree with Lightning network again transfer power to users from the miners.
By increasing the blocksize to an amount high enough to be able to deal with VISA's transactional volume (and we are looking at 25k transacions per second only at VISA, if Bitcoin has to be a global currency usable for everyday-tasks, we need much more) you would never be able to get around centralizing the network due the nodes being handled to datacenters, which are corporations, which are ultimately controlled easily by governments. You are handling control at layer 0.
With LN, everything happens at layer 1, layer 0 is still a decentralized network of nodes.
This is why BCash is dead and is not real competition when it comes to the idea of scaling Bitcoin.
into a database that is already 200gb in size and then trying to distribute this to 20,000 machines and keep them all in
sync.
Trouble is you cannot just jump to the top of block to calculate the value of a wallet and you have to go back down
the chain (Link list of block headers) and check all the history of each coin or part coin in the wallet to decide if the
wallet has the money to spend. Processing 200gb of data is bad and it will only get much worse.
Repeat this 20,000 times you see why it costs 90KWH of electric just to process 250 bytes of data
BLOCK-CHAIN DOES NOT SCALE and having a two tear system using lighting and hubs (Banks) giving out IOU's
is not the answer and it will create more trouble than it solves.
Read up on IOTA Tangle or better still HashGraph and do not support CPU wars, silly high fees or PoW because from
a programmers perspective it is a joke and the crypto guys have taken over the board-room and are trying to design
systems that they know nothing about and this is why BTC is slow.
Yes i am sure I could come up with a few radical fixes using coordinators and a tree type structure for the mass of
data (200gb just now) and split it up by node groups but it would be better to start again from scratch and just
learn from the mess Mr "s-m" has feed to the world.
Both IOTA and Hashgraph have been refuted already by creditable people in the field. Tangle is unsafe, and Hashgraph is closed source trash. Who would trust their money on that thing?
Bitcoin doesn't even need to scale if you want a decentralized gold, but lightning network can work good enough for smaller transactions.
None of the altcoins present convincing replacements for PoW. PoW is still king.
I'm sorry, i don't understand why everybody keeps repeating this nonsense. The arguments against PoS have been either thoroughly debunked or the issue has been fixed.
Just look at Casper PoS, it's as decentralized and secure as it gets. Compared to that, PoW looks like a complete joke.
Comrades, when is date to release Lightning network?
Unless they conflict each other, why not having both? Lightning Network and SegWit2X can coexist to scale the bitcoin.
It seems for me that lightning network makes bitcoin more centralized. I do not like this. How do you think?
I think that, lightning network will always be a CHOICE. You can still use old-type addresses, and pay higher transaction fees, or you can use lightning network with smaller fees.
I would use old-type addresses for big sums and lightning network for smaller sums.
Exactly. Off chain transactions are a choice. You don't have to use them and you can always use your best judgement to know if it would be worth it or not. Centralized though? It's hard to say how centralized it would be at this point.
There's only one way to find out: and that is to get it going on the main net at a big scale. Once big payment processors adopt lightning network solutions we will see how all this traffic routes through all the channels.
I would love to see Steam come back with adopting Bitcoin through lightning network. It was a sad day when they removed it, I used to buy games on steam with bitcoin before the fees went apeshit. I would use LN to buy games again on there.
It seems for me that lightning network makes bitcoin more centralized. I do not like this. How do you think?
I think that, lightning network will always be a CHOICE. You can still use old-type addresses, and pay higher transaction fees, or you can use lightning network with smaller fees.
I would use old-type addresses for big sums and lightning network for smaller sums.
Exactly. Off chain transactions are a choice. You don't have to use them and you can always use your best judgement to know if it would be worth it or not. Centralized though? It's hard to say how centralized it would be at this point.
Why the hell does the Bitcoin Development & Technical Forum look like this?
“Lightning Network VS SegWit2Mb(S2X)”
“Lightning Network vs Bitcoin cash”
I have a better idea for a thread! “Lightning Network vs. Genital Herpes”.
Or maybe, “Lightning Network vs. Involuntary Coprophagy”.
Or worst of all, “Lightning Network vs. JPMorgan” (ewww!).
Really, what is this obsession with comparing an excellent new Bitcoin technology with disgusting, useless things which have nothing to do with Bitcoin? It does not even make sense.
“Lightning Network VS SegWit2Mb(S2X)”
“Lightning Network vs Bitcoin cash”
I have a better idea for a thread! “Lightning Network vs. Genital Herpes”.
Or maybe, “Lightning Network vs. Involuntary Coprophagy”.
Or worst of all, “Lightning Network vs. JPMorgan” (ewww!).
Really, what is this obsession with comparing an excellent new Bitcoin technology with disgusting, useless things which have nothing to do with Bitcoin? It does not even make sense.
Why the hell does the Bitcoin Development & Technical Forum look like this?
“Lightning Network VS SegWit2Mb(S2X)”
“Lightning Network vs Bitcoin cash”
I have a better idea for a thread! “Lightning Network vs. Genital Herpes”.
Or maybe, “Lightning Network vs. Involuntary Coprophagy”.
Or worst of all, “Lightning Network vs. JPMorgan” (ewww!).
Really, what is this obsession with comparing an excellent new Bitcoin technology with disgusting, useless things which have nothing to do with Bitcoin? It does not even make sense.
“Lightning Network VS SegWit2Mb(S2X)”
“Lightning Network vs Bitcoin cash”
I have a better idea for a thread! “Lightning Network vs. Genital Herpes”.
Or maybe, “Lightning Network vs. Involuntary Coprophagy”.
Or worst of all, “Lightning Network vs. JPMorgan” (ewww!).
Really, what is this obsession with comparing an excellent new Bitcoin technology with disgusting, useless things which have nothing to do with Bitcoin? It does not even make sense.
Which one will be the solution to the bitcoin scalability problem (Dream of instant payments with low fees)?
Lightning Network: off-chain protocol
It would feature a P2P system for making micropayments of digital cryptocurrency through a scale-free network of bidirectional payment channels without delegating custody of funds or trust to third parties.[1]
SegWit2x: block size limit
was a failed contentious hardfork outlined in the New York Agreement that intended to double the block size limit. The hardfork has been denounced as an attempt made by CEOs and owners of large Bitcoin businesses to introduce changes to the currency's protocol and development cycle with ulterior motives.[2]
Of course it's LN, the off-chain solution. Block size limit will always be reached while the transactions increase. But the ASIC company will not like the LN solution because that will reduce their profit.
Everyone seems to be saying the Lightning Network will lead to more centralization. No, 2x would have lead to more centralization. Just because some LN users will open more channels than others does not mean it is centralized.
It's not an either/or situation. Yes, 2x (or more accurately 8x) would have led to more centralization. But let's not avoid the actual issues at hand. There are some edge cases where counterparty risk exists in Lightning. High on-chain fees may exacerbate this risk:
Quote
Not "zero counterparty risk" but pretty close. If you can't post a transaction to the blockchain to prove that you own a certain amount of bitcoin then the party with whom you have an open channel could take all of the funds in the channel. This is an edge case, and if you choose your channel counterparties wisely should never be an issue even under adverse conditions on the blockchain. But still a possibility that makes the risk "non-zero".
Quote
There are still two small risks. One, if the fee to close a channel is larger than the discrepancy, then it is not worth it. Second, if the bitcoin layer is backlogged, you might not be able to post a transaction in time.
If LN does solve the backlog, then the risk essentially becomes zero. However, if the backlog remains, than the counter-party risk is quite significant.
If LN does solve the backlog, then the risk essentially becomes zero. However, if the backlog remains, than the counter-party risk is quite significant.
So, depending on the fee conditions of Layer 1, there can be additional risks to using Lightning. This risk entails that you choose your counterparties wisely, as John Light pointed out above.
The problem is Coinbase, Xapo, Bitpay, and basically the big chunk of transactions that happen in the network, are all still not using segwit. If these companies where to finally start allowing bech32 addresses, the mempool would be empty again, leaving us with no problems to open and close channels for cheap prices and finally get Bitcoin scaling as an usable day-to-day currency while not killing it as a store of value by raising the blocksize. So blame the big companies for not using segwit yet.
Everyone seems to be saying the Lightning Network will lead to more centralization. No, 2x would have lead to more centralization. Just because some LN users will open more channels than others does not mean it is centralized.
It's not an either/or situation. Yes, 2x (or more accurately 8x) would have led to more centralization. But let's not avoid the actual issues at hand. There are some edge cases where counterparty risk exists in Lightning. High on-chain fees may exacerbate this risk:
Quote
Not "zero counterparty risk" but pretty close. If you can't post a transaction to the blockchain to prove that you own a certain amount of bitcoin then the party with whom you have an open channel could take all of the funds in the channel. This is an edge case, and if you choose your channel counterparties wisely should never be an issue even under adverse conditions on the blockchain. But still a possibility that makes the risk "non-zero".
Quote
There are still two small risks. One, if the fee to close a channel is larger than the discrepancy, then it is not worth it. Second, if the bitcoin layer is backlogged, you might not be able to post a transaction in time.
If LN does solve the backlog, then the risk essentially becomes zero. However, if the backlog remains, than the counter-party risk is quite significant.
If LN does solve the backlog, then the risk essentially becomes zero. However, if the backlog remains, than the counter-party risk is quite significant.
So, depending on the fee conditions of Layer 1, there can be additional risks to using Lightning. This risk entails that you choose your counterparties wisely, as John Light pointed out above.
It seems for me that lightning network makes bitcoin more centralized. I do not like this. How do you think?
You are absolutely wrong on the contrary I think it might give it some room to be decentralized again by actually snatching off the power to hike fees from the hands of miners. Moreover its still ambiguous that how much it will reduce fees as to what extent it will affect the network so we can't really comment upon its nature. Everyone seems to be saying the Lightning Network will lead to more centralization. No, 2x would have lead to more centralization. Just because some LN users will open more channels than others does not mean it is centralized. If you think someone has too many channels open, which we're pretending is a bad thing, then don't connect to them, and then you will still be able to use LN.
Saying things doesn't make them true.
The algorithm for the LN does not look AT ALL like it would lead to more centralization. It looks like the exact opposite of what a banker would like to see.
If this is not true please show how and why.
Segwit has total support of the miners and developers and has already been activated (good!). You are thinking of SegWit2x which was a failed agreement made behind closed doors and without the support of the developers (good that it failed!).
By increasing the blocksize to an amount high enough to be able to deal with VISA's transactional volume (and we are looking at 25k transacions per second only at VISA, if Bitcoin has to be a global currency usable for everyday-tasks, we need much more) you would never be able to get around centralizing the network due the nodes being handled to datacenters, which are corporations, which are ultimately controlled easily by governments. You are handling control at layer 0.
With LN, everything happens at layer 1, layer 0 is still a decentralized network of nodes.
This is why BCash is dead and is not real competition when it comes to the idea of scaling Bitcoin.
into a database that is already 200gb in size and then trying to distribute this to 20,000 machines and keep them all in
sync.
Trouble is you cannot just jump to the top of block to calculate the value of a wallet and you have to go back down
the chain (Link list of block headers) and check all the history of each coin or part coin in the wallet to decide if the
wallet has the money to spend. Processing 200gb of data is bad and it will only get much worse.
Repeat this 20,000 times you see why it costs 90KWH of electric just to process 250 bytes of data
BLOCK-CHAIN DOES NOT SCALE and having a two tear system using lighting and hubs (Banks) giving out IOU's
is not the answer and it will create more trouble than it solves.
Read up on IOTA Tangle or better still HashGraph and do not support CPU wars, silly high fees or PoW because from
a programmers perspective it is a joke and the crypto guys have taken over the board-room and are trying to design
systems that they know nothing about and this is why BTC is slow.
Yes i am sure I could come up with a few radical fixes using coordinators and a tree type structure for the mass of
data (200gb just now) and split it up by node groups but it would be better to start again from scratch and just
learn from the mess Mr "s-m" has feed to the world.
Both IOTA and Hashgraph have been refuted already by creditable people in the field. Tangle is unsafe, and Hashgraph is closed source trash. Who would trust their money on that thing?
Bitcoin doesn't even need to scale if you want a decentralized gold, but lightning network can work good enough for smaller transactions.
None of the altcoins present convincing replacements for PoW. PoW is still king.
Bitcoin network long time in bigger monopolist hands, decentralized it on words, then lightning network not bad idea
Jump to: