Topic: Lightning Network VS SegWit2Mb(S2X) - page 2. (Read 631 times)

That's true within a certain numerical range.

For example if Traffic = 100 and the range is Traffic = 25 up to Traffic = 500.

But it does not work for surge conditions and exponential adoption.

With bitcoin we have literally Traffic = 3/second and Desired Traffic = 25,000/s

Regardless of the solution proposed, one thing should be clear: avoid hardcoded sizes like plague! Simple as that.
hardcoded != scalable

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.
Exactly I am also trying to ask the very same thing that how in this world it would promote centralization? On the contrary I think segwit will lead to bitcoin centralization but it cannot as it barely has a miner support just 2 developers on a horde to make their own coin isn't really called a fork.

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.

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.

What? Who has to process 200 gb of data? A node when downloading/verifying blockchain the first (and only) time
Kinda senseless statement.



Could you please provide a source for your statement of 90 KHW for 250 bytes of data?
This seems like purely made up out of thin air.. Processing 250 bytes of data takes less than 1WH... not sure what you are talking about..



Please.. either:
1) Provide any proof for your assertion or
2) Just stop writing nonsense

Payment channels are far far away from banks.
Its fully decentralized (If you think the lightning network will lead to centralization, then please use google and start reading some scientific articles).



Yes.. IOTA is the way to go. With all of those network issues.. With all of those vulnerabilities to (almost) free attacks.
If you are so confident about IOTA's tangle, just sell all of your BTC's and move over to IOTA..

As much as I like the concept of decentralization I would have to agree with you but in what sense would LN make bitcoin more centralized? Do you mean that some hubs will be superior to others?

Playing with block sizes or timing is not the answer and it comes down to having more and more data all being stuffed
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.

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.

Lightning network can proceed and should proceed ignoring all regulations.

As did bitcoin.

Registering for person to person movement of virtual currency?

Get real.

In a world of cars and freeways, Bitcoin is a two lane country road.

LN is your flying car.

Lightning Network is a sticking plaster that will not hold
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

The main ledger should hold all transactions from $0.10 to $25,123 and
trying to split the data up using banks (Hubs) will only create more trouble

You don't write programs like this, you have all been taken in by a scam
to create CPU wars and to waste electricity or are you enjoying $45 fees
and a mere 7 transactions per second on BTC plus long wait times.

Inflation double on each fork so little to nothing from the original white-paper
is working and the crypto nuts have taken over programming here and made
a right mess of the whole thing.

VISA does 25,000 transactions per second and BTC has 1000 X More CPU
power to use than they have so come on guys, start waking up because it's BS
and trying to share a 200gb database between 20,000 nodes and to keep it in
sync is plain stupid

A good system must accept some type of centralization which you can do without
handing power over to anyone (Coordinators in effect) and the ledger must become
more tree like in its structure so that the processing can be carried out by organized
groups of nodes.

Pow is a total joke and needs throwing in the bin and if you build a shit system
that leaves itself open to this 51% attack they warn us about then go back to
school and learn to program.

 

Segwit (not 2x) already inceased the block size from 1MB to 4MB (non-witness-part) in a soft fork earlier this year.
Currently blocks have the size of about 2-2,5 MB. If everyone would use segwit already, this could increase to 4MB.
Doubling (resp. increasing) the block size again is contra productive in terms of centralisation. Additionally its just a short-term solution to the scalability issue.

The Lightning network is no way more centralized.
Everyone will be able to open a payment channel. And payments will be distributed across different payment channels.
You will still be in control of your money, always. The LN is a second layer. It does not have to be used. Old on-chain transaction will still be possible.

Both segwit2x and lightning network will resolve the scalability issue of bitcoin, although segwit2x will offers upgrading of capacity to 2MB, it is more preferable to lightning Network because LN is more centralized rather than decentralized due to the fact that it has to be registered as transmission of money in countries like USA where it is going to be subjected to regulations as against the the main feature of bitcoin  which of course  is decentralization.

This will cease the issues like: "Bitcoin doesn't have a real-word value"
I agree with Parodium's hindsight.

Look at the bigger picture, not just the stats.

How so?

To me lightning network will be of good choice than segwit2mb because it is a layer two protocol that allows bitcoin users to create a network of bi-directional payment channels and perform instant off-chain transactions through these channels. Using lightning will reduce pressure on the blockchain while enabling much more transaction capacity (limited only by the number of channel open and channel close transactions that can fit in the blockchain). In terms of transaction, lightning network allowing participants to transfer money to each other without having to make all their transactions public on the blockchain (which would make transactions “lightening fast”).

That's huge.

A slight increase in centralization may be beneficial to the future of bitcoin, I believe if the lightning network is finalized ASAP bitcoin will have a viable future as an alternative to credit and fiat currency.

Centralized, how? I haven't seen any compelling evidence that the Lightning Network would devolve into a hub-and-spoke model. Even if it did, that would just indicate that several large entities process the majority of transactions. How is that fundamentally different than a handful of mining pools processing the majority of on-chain transactions?

In both cases, the centralized entities (Lightning "hubs" or mining pools) could play a role in censoring transactions. But they are unlikely to be able censor all transactions for a significant period of time. In both cases, users don't trust funds to third parties and still rely on decentralized consensus.

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.