Topic: Offchain transactions like Lightning Network might be Satoshi's original vision? (Read 389 times)

Yes, but what I am saying is if the user base increases to a number that utilizes all of the 32mb then there should be another hard fork?

Are you also saying that Bitcoin Cash will not reach a user base count that would utilize its maximum block size making fees very cheap forever?

Then who would bear the costs of processing the transactions in the network? Miners cannot live on the block rewards forever, literally.


Maybe but it is the better way in my opinion.


Explain how.


What do you expect? This is software development. There will be never ending bugs and flaws.

Plus where did you read about "coin theft"? You are making that up.



For now you need to always be connected. There are new developments to make it unnecessary.


Let me show this to someone who knows more about Lightning to see if you are bullshitting again or not.



We already are beginning to have bandwidth problems in Bitcoin with 1mb max block sizes, what more with 32mb?


I agree and it will, but Bitcoin will not do a hard fork to bigger block sizes for political reasons, or because Roger Ver, Jihan Wu or Craig Wright want to.


Maybe, but the Lightning Network is doing ok for now and have more nodes running than Bitcoin Cash. There are no complaints, but I will ask around if what you are saying is true.


I am still not convinced that Bitcoin Cash's 32mb big blocks is a better way to scale with all things like, blockchain bloat and block propagation, considered. Sorry.

then rename the topic "offchain was thought to be possible by satoshi"
or
"an offchain implementation might have be satoshi's future vision"

not
The Lightning Network might be Satoshi's original vision?

analogy time
steve jobs invents apple...
interviewer asks steve jobs. is it possible that an iphone can be used on a space station
steve jobs.. its possible
summary "ISS space station might be steve jobs original vision for apple"

another analogy
the middle ages. someone makes the first wheelbarrow
another person says, is it possiblle for me to sit in it
summary. the people of the middle ages invented Ford cars

see the failure of trying to make LN (branded offchain network) sound like satoshi envisioned/endorced it. using flimsy things like offchain is possible

The Lightning Network might not be the original solution of Satoshi's. I think he did not imagine how far bitcoin would unfold. But this solution is necessary in modern conditions

I am saying that the User Base is no where near to maxing out a 2MB block on a 24 hour cycle much less a 32 MB.
What you are missing is that the ONCHAIN transaction fees will be cheaper on a coin that has sufficient transaction capacity.
Preventing excessive fees like what we saw last year on Bitcoin Core.

If transactions are created , then they are stored.
Either ONCHAIN as Bitcoin Cash is Choosing or Offchain as Bitcoin Core is Choosing.

Transaction Data > Bitcoin Cash Onchain Database
or
Transaction Data > Bitcoin Core Onchain Database
                         > LN HUB/Bank Offchain Database

* US Law Requires all financial data be held 5 years from the last time a client uses a financial service*
* So your LN Hubs will not be able to delete their offchain transactions data until a (client & other parties transacted with) all have been dead for 5 years. *
* Corporations don't die , so their data can never be deleted.*

Same amount of transaction data, just stored in different places.

Blockstream jumped the gun by 20 years, by moving to offchain, when modern tech can easily handle onchain up to a max of 32MB.
Blockstream over complicated a design that it was unnecessary to over complicate, and that added flaws like a LN hub needing to be constantly online to avoid coin theft.


Let's Say the Block Size is Maxed out to 32 MB for every block.
Transaction Data > Bitcoin Cash Onchain Database   Stores 32MB to every block
or
Transaction Data > Bitcoin Core Onchain Database    Stores 2MB to every onchain block
                         > LN HUB/Bank Offchain Database  Stores 30MB in the Offchain Data Base

From a Hardware point of view ,
you are going to need the Exact Same storage capacity for both.

However due to LN flaw of needing to be constantly connected , Bitcoin Core LN will require More Internet Bandwidth.
On the Bitcoin Core Onchain Transactions are going to be Maxed out, since it is really only rated for 1.7MB on chain  ,
Meaning not only are the Bitcoin Core Onchain Transaction Fees going to skyrocket, also the LN Hub Fees will skyrocket as there bandwidth costs are higher than an onchain node.  Worse Case Scenario Bitcoin Core Coins are Stolen because LN Hubs were unable to get the needed Onchain transactions in time. (Known Design flaw in the LN whitepaper.)


On the Bitcoin Cash Onchain Transactions are also Maxed,
but the keyword is Maxed out at 32MB, not exceeding 32 MB, so there Onchain Transaction Fees are at a fixed value and transactions are met in a timely fashion.
This Network will run smoother since they only have to maintain a full nodes with no excessive bandwidth requirements.

Now here is the funny part, the only way to make your Bitcoin Core LN Banks Safe to use is to INCREASE THEIR ONCHAIN BLOCKSIZE.  

So if you paid attention ,
you will see running an Bitcoin Core LN Hub and Core Full Node will require more resources than just running a Bitcoin Cash Full Node even when the blocks are maxed.

Also Bitcoin Cash will not suffer amount limits transfers problems, as it is not limited to amounts only stored in the LN Hub/Bank channels.

 

You mean like how majority of the Bitcoin Cash nodes are all instances located in Alibaba's cloud service?

I personally do not mind the hub and spoke model for Lightning, especially in the beginning, for efficiency.


Are you saying that Bitcoin Cash's goal is to make 32mb blocks and hope that it does not fill up? What if it does, then another hard fork?

But we are of the real topic. Get back to "Offchain transactions might be Satoshi's original vision".


That is all I needed to hear. Arguing about the implementation is another case entirely.

You missed the point all together,  the point is there is NOT an UNLIMITED Amount of Transactions taking place on btc,
so even if they all rolled over to Bitcoin Cash then it takes the exact same amount of space not more.
Because the coins only use the block size needed to carry the current transactions, No one will create a 32mb block if there is only 1 mb of transaction data.  
Even at today average low internet speed, 32mb is no real strain on infrastructure.
Which 32mb may not be needed for 15 years or longer.

Storage Requirements will grow at the rate of Actual Transaction Growth , not at the Maximum Potential block transaction size.
Because block size will only grow to what is necessary, and currently 2mb is more than adequate.

So the critics math skills are sorely lacking if they used the Max Potential in their calculations.


 
  

to interupt the conversation flow some more
to rub some pepper into the salt, those channel/node counts are actually not people counts. some of them hubs are run by one person and run on servers like amazon.. (remember the image of the network for >EUROPE< network) in another topic. that node owner has other large channel count hubs too.

as for "critics doing the maths" they said 1mb+ woul kill the network and will get hit by the chinese firewall..
they ademently refused 2mb at the late 2015 'consensus' conference. and then challenged that segwit+offchain was the only way

.. months later..
strangely but not surpringly backed down and denounced their own maths when they buzzworded their "weight" of 4mb. i even rememeber laughing that LukeJr (moderator of the bips) pretended that he had no control of core and was just a contributor. saying it in a manner that he was just the was just a janitor, cleaning the rubbish out of a corporate offices trashcan and had no control over what bips got accepted or rejected

That's because the volume of Bitcoin Cash transactions are small. Smaller than Dogecoin's transaction volume. Hahaha.

Plus if that's your reasoning on why you say bigger blocks increasing centralization is a "just a myth" then I would say that it is very weak. I believe the critics already did the math behind it.

To rub some salt in it, there are now more Lightning nodes than Bitcoin Cash nodes.

satoshi did agree with hearne that offchain is possible in as much as online exchanges dont have to publish every trade.
even before LN. there were things like bitgo that utilised multisig to do offchain stuff too

but satoshis quote and bitgo are not LN and LN cannot pretend to be the concept of satoshi nor bitgo nor anything prior.

also it was hearne who used terms like settlement layer, channels.
it was hearne who joined R3 and became part of hyperledger.. and .. (drum roll) so did blockstream, which is where all this stuff is being cencepted behind the scenes

and yes LN will be the vessel to allow offchain swaps between different currencies in the future (another thing hyperledger banking groups want) which is where the whole BC1q addresses became a thing instead of sticking with '3' addresses so that inside LN, bankers can identify a bitcoin currency address by its BC1q and then the bankers can have their fiat coins identified by their USD1q GBP1q addresses

... oops did i let that slip.. oh no.. now the core loyalists are salivating even mor at the mouth to let cores PAID devs do what they like and centralise even further just for the orgasmic thought of offchain swaps with fiat.. without giving a crap about bitcoins decentralisation and whole original ethos of bitcoin

i would agre having funds in a multisig is better than just putting funds into an exchanges sole control private key.
but.,
you can also get blackmailed and scammed by the current LN channel counterpart. seems people need to run more scenarios before screaming LN is utopia


seem zin-zang is talking about a hub BEING your counterpart. and a hub with hundreds of channels (acting like a bank branch manager is not exactly going to match the 'customers'(your) funds 1-for-1. because if a hubs channel counterparts are all risking say $60+ value that would mean a hub would have to reserve $6,000 just to be a channel counter part to 100 people.

also when you make a payment. your actual funds do not reach the recipient. you pay the hub. the hub then uses the hubs other funds it has with another channel to pay that person. so both you and the destination recipient are relying on the hub.

running scenarios. most establish hubs. lets use starbucks for instance as becoming the BANK branch2.0 hub. they would hate it if for every loyal customer who wants to risk $60 to buy a month of coffee, do you think starbucks too would put $60 into every loyal customrs joint bank account it has with said customer
no. at most starbuck would only put in $2-4, maybe. to cover any wire transfer fee's(onchain fee) for settling up the bartab. and maybe just enough to cover a 1 coffee refund/buy a friend a coffee amount
meaning starbucks who only has $2-$4 to lose with a counter part. and requiring customers to be honourable will have the upper hand of ensuring the customer signs first and bills get paid in a quick manner otherwise starbucks will give penaltie to the customer

starbucks would then put $6000 into a channel with another banker hub. and let the other hub handle anything bigger than $2 for larger routes

just to interupt

LN relies on timelocks
timelocks is a broad term for several time lock features that are available. and LN relies on 3 different time locks for it to work

LN uses
Nlocktime
the CSV+CLTV
and HLTC

Nlock time to prevent a TX being accepted into a block until X blockheight

CSV+CLTV to, when added to a block prevent the new UTXO from being spent for a certain period to allow the counter party time to sumbit a revocation

and

HTLC for the in-channel routing to not treat a intermediary routed payment as 'accepted' until the final recipient has accepted.

HTLC is normally meant to expire in a few seconds
CSV+CLTV is normally meant to be treated as the equivelent of banks 3-5 day 'balance pending' settlement period to allow chargebacks before finally become 'available balance'
and Nlocktime is normally meant to be treated like a childs trust fund, where it cant be used before a certain date

and yes knitpickers im using very basic ELI-5 bank comparable explanations.. not conveluted technical buzzworditry to hide the reality like a few people keep trying to do

We can conclude our conversation, with an agree to disagree.
And I will stick to using my zeitcoins onchain and using exchanges offchain when I need them.

Enjoy your LN, if they ever get it working safely.   

it is not time lock it is Hashed Timelock Contracts. practically it gives the receiver  a time frame in which they can either acknowledge they have received the funds or return it automatically to sender.
you are not locking any funds or freezing anything as long as you have it in your LN wallet. but HTLC is used when sending funds to another person. but before that you can close the channel and cash out anytime you want.

wrong. you would only use an exchange if you want to lose money aka get scammed by the exchange.

you run an LN node when you want to join Lightning Network and use it. you and the receiver are the ones that can take the funds not other LN nodes. they are just there to relay the transactions, they can't "confiscate" anything.
as for DDoS, the timeout period can be changed, it is 1 day by default if i am not mistaken. and your scenario doesn't even make sense! imagine you want to buy a T shirt from a shop, you make the payment through LN then DDoS the shop's node so they don't receive the payment! what will happen now is that they won't send you your T shirt

i don't know what this has to do with anything!
nobody is forcing you to use LN now or even in the future. if you don't like it then don't use it. if you don't like bitcoin then don't use bitcoin either. go stick to your ZEITCOIN

In my understanding ,
Time Locking means the asset is frozen and may not be move for a set amount of time.
Is Yours any different?

You would use an exchange Offchain transactions
1.  You need the speed for a retail transaction
2.  You don't want to have to keep blockchains synced or maintain your own backups or coin security.
3.  You want to avoid the Onchain fees for transactions
4.  You want the transaction not to be recorded onchain in a public ledger


I think you are confused about
The LN Hub is the one in control, it makes sure the rules are followed and if you break the rules, ie: try to broadcast an old transmission, the LN Hub will confiscate your funds.
Now you may run your own LN hub, but a simple ddos attack during a time lock expiration would mean one of the other parties could steal funds by broadcasting an older transaction.  
(Exchange have none of these limitations, as their offchain transactions are Instant and immediately available for withdraw.
If you can't see why this is superior to LN, then the nicest thing I can say is you are partisan to LN where it clouds reason.)


Some of the top LN devs have said LN is not ready for Public usage except for amounts you are willing to lose.
Pardon me if I am not willing to risk throwing money away for someone else's need to show their LN network works.


What would be interesting is if say 10 people here that actually need some offchain transactions for speed would volunteer,
all ten people use LN for 1 week and then use an Exchange's like Cryptopia or Trade Satoshi Offchain Transactions  for 1 week,
and then report back here which performed better for their needs.

But they actually have to use both , so a fair assessment can be presented to all.

* I can tell you from personal experience , using an Exchange Offchain Transactions does not require you to study a bunch of the alice & bob scenarios like LN does. *

i don't think you know what time lock means!
and if you want to "moving your funds out immediately" then why in the world would you want to use an exchange for that? you deposit on an exchange then transfer funds to someone else then withdraw?!!!! why not directly pay that person.

with LN you fund your channel and you will remain in full control of all your funds. you make the payment anytime you want to one or 1000 others as long as you have even 1 satoshi left and close the channel anytime you want. all the while your funds are secure and in your own control.

just because you have not yet used LN doesn't mean it is not working!
go check it out.

Exchanges don't require time locking, meaning you can make your transactions and move your funds out immediately decreasing any centralization risk.
You only need to move in funds for a specific payment, where as with LN you will need to Time Lock a Larger Portion of your funds.

Exchanges are working right now, LN is not!

If you use LN Notes , you are not really using Bitcoin either.
(Notes are a promise the asset (bitcoin) will be delivered at the end of the contract/channel closing.)

Will you even know which LN Hub you are using and if the LN Hub crashes before a channel closes, what is to stop one of the other parties from stealing the others funds.

LN will centralize control to a few Major hubs, an Exchange does the same No real difference, but is more open and honest about the fact.

I think if people ever start using LN, it limitations will far outstrip any supposed benefits, but time will tell.

then you will be using some numbers on a centralized database, you are not using bitcoin! if that database were to disappear some day, your money will disappear with it also. and every couple of months we are seeing at least one exchange be hacked...

That's true, but because of BCHs increased block size the chain can grow much larger than BTCs. BTC has an effective 4Mb block size due to Segwit (some even claim 1.6 mb - 2 mb). if BCH had constant full blocks at 16mb or even 32mb its blockchain would grow significantly faster and cause centralization due to the requirements of running a full node. BTC would be at 4 MB and everything else would take place off chain, Thus retaining BTCs decentralization at the base layer.

I look for the OP's reference and I think he/she didn't spread any hoax. What the OP said might be true because we don't know who is Satoshi Nakamoto. Maybe, he knew already that this things might happen when he invented the BTC. Right from the start, I already believe that Satoshi can do the lightning networks since he already proved that he can make a change using the blockchain technology.
We admit it or not but Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the greates inventor of all times and he can make innovation with his own discovery.

BTC blockchain is growing faster than BCH's due to more transactions being stored on it,
However if all BTC transactions moved to BCH, it would grow at the exact same rate, not an inflated rate.

The only difference is BCH would not have the inflated onchain fees because they are backlogged.
Plus Offchain scaling with any coin can be done much cheaper and easier using an exchange instead of LN beta code.

What is funny is people act like transaction data , won't take up resources if used in an LN hub, when nothing can be further from the truth.
They claim it will have thousands of transactions per second , so it's database should grow faster than either onchain version.

The true issue here is that if you want random people to maintain full onchain nodes , there needs to a compensation to cover their costs , like what Dash pays there masternodes.
Thinking anyone besides those heavy invested are going to maintain any nodes for free is naive fantasy which is the premise for the myth that larger blocks will make it unreasonable for casual users to run a node.

In other words if either network , cut the full nodes a % of the transaction fees, you see more than enough nodes from random people to satisfy everyone.