Topic: The Lightning Network Reality Check - page 3. (Read 3469 times)

It does, because it is a fact. The validation time is quadratic. It does not make my claim invalid just because:
A) You don't understand the issue.
B) You don't know how to create this transaction yourself.

The fact you've said it multiple times doesn't make it true. 

Because it is possible to construct a transaction that takes too long to validate (10 minutes any more). I've said this multiple times. There's a proposal that aims to fix the quadratic scaling but it has not been implemented yet, meaning it won't be included in 0.12.

Your initial post mentioned 'dogecoin' which made no sense.

Why do you say they are not safe?

Consider the following:

- two parties create a multisig address in the bitcoin blockchain (the "channel" address)
- the two parties transfer their bitcoins into that address
- the two parties transact back and forth, via email, any amounts they want to transfer between each other
- when done transacting, the two parties settle in the bitcoin blockchain using the multisig address

The "Bitcoin Lightspeed SMTP Network". Unlimited transactions, no fees, transactions occur immediately, the bitcoins are "locked" and both parties must agree to get any "locked" bitcoins so the transactions via email are actual bitcoin transactions.

Would you agree? The emails they send each other saying what bitcoins transactions they are making are, in fact, actual bitcoin transactions even though they don't appear in the bitcoin blockchain because they refer to bitcoins in the blockchain? If instead of using email, they used an altcoin like doge, would you say the doge transactions were also bitcoin transactions because the doge represented bitcoin in the bitcoin blockchain?

This seems to be a controversial point. I believe even Adam Back thinks 2MB blocks are safe. I’d have to find the sauce tho...

You are still using Bitcoin. LN is Bitcoin. You are just transacting off the main chain but you are transacting Bitcoin. Also, LN would work at 1 MB it is just the amount of TPS would be lower (much lower than Visa) but still much higher than what we have today.

I'll just shortly answer this without going much into detail: A) 2 MB blocks are not safe ATM; B) Handing over the commit keys to a much smaller group of newbie developers (except Gavin).

You don't 'buy in' into anything. You are not buying altcoins. You are locking your Bitcoin so that you can transact with that amount on LN. This process takes 3 confirmations right now (might be changed), so ~30 minutes.


The only time that you will wait for your coins is if/when something goes wrong between the second party that you're transacting with.

No, it is not. You are still transacting the very same Bitcoin, it is just that you are transacting them off the main chain. Is this so hard to comprehend? Once you are done with the off-chain they get settled.

---

---

There is only 1 employee from Blockstream working on LN AFAIK. The Bitcoin community does not even deserve this. You are asking me how a company is going to ROI or get profit? A company that I'm not involved with?
That's not my concern and if I would guess it would be 'custom made' sidechains with 'technical support' or something of that sort. However, my guess could be completely wrong.

No, they aren't and no there doesn't exist a 'simple solution'. 2 MB blocks are dangerous at the moment because a transaction could be created that would take too long to validate (10 minutes or more). SegWit gives us a similar amount of added space and thus the tps will rise similarly as it would with 2 MB blocks.

I might be wrong but are the investments into ln a myth? If not how do you think these investments are planned to coming back, probably with profits?

Though maybe i was informed wrongly.


You are right, they don't say "Use LN or die". They practically say "Use LN or leave." since when bitcoin became unuseable because of too high fees then there would be LN as alternative, right?

I guess they really don't like that the way more simple solution already exists.

He means that with adoption of cryptocurrencies and broader use of ln, it would be inevitable that only big corporations could access the bitcoin network anymore at all. The 1mb blocks would be full and transactions very expensive. What will be left then? Banks and big companies. Great idea for a currency that started to free the people from the power of banks.
[/quote]

What's so hard in seeing that bitcoiners use bitcoin and want to use bitcoin. If someone offers "Let's not use bitcoin but an alternative way outside of bitcoin, only finalizing on bitcoin." then clearly that is the alternative suggested.

It's funny that the claims of the amount of worldwide possible transactions that can be done with LN instead with bitcoin, would not even work without the bitcoin blocksize being raised.


Well, for most bitcoiners it really feels like developers are the one in power who block. The devs that want to change something left or had to left. So the feeling of not having them acting in your interest comes up of course. And of course the feeling arises that they have the power and that it is no democracy.

Even when, what do you have against the fork when you claim there is no one in power? It shouldn't matter to you because it would be the normal way things go. Or would you prefer someone decides that no fork is allowed to happen?


You have to put your bitcoins into otherwise you can't act with lightning network. If i'm wrong let me know.


Right. Still, you have to give your coins ouf of your hands. And i believe the payment channel partner has to agree when you want the coins back before it's time. So waiting for your own coins to come back means you have to give them out of your hands. They might still be safe but bound.


Opening and closing the channel is bitcoin. Everything in between seems to be more like a virtual bitcoin circulating.

Well, guess you don't get my point then. You are right about the private keys but that only means changetip potentially can scam you. That is not the case with ln, but still you have to take your bitcoins and load them up in another system to be able to play with virtual bitcoins there. Until you close the payment channel.

I don't see that many will be happy to bind their bitcoins in some payment channels. But we will see.

The full paper is here:

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

Two parties get together and create a "channel", an address in the bitcoin block chain that requires 2 signatures to perform transactions. Both agree on the amount in the channel and when done doing transactions outside of the bitcoin blockchain, both agree to sign the transaction to withdraw from the channel.

This is no different from both parties putting the coins into an alt-coin where each have half the key to the alt coin, doing transactions there and then converting back into bitcoin with both keys when they are done. I am simplifying here (it isn't half-key, it is multi-sig, etc.), of course, to look at the big picture.

The individuals promoting "The Lightening Network" essentially are just promoting their own alt-coin. The full title of the paper includes the words "Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments", not "Scalable On-Chain Instant Payments"

You're in serious trouble if that's how you're measuring. Go.

1/10 for wit and 0/10 for substance.  You're trending down brah 

Remember this comment to genuinely useful Bitcointalker BitUsher:



Now, lets just get it straight:

You people have been trying to take the Bitcoin Ball home with you for months now, yet everyone keeps telling you "not your ball, just do the going home part".



Irony much? Let me tell you again: go home (WITHOUT the ball, jonald, put it down again please...)

My favourite part:
NB: I am not in favour of a contentious hard fork.

I just read the summary of LN, which is more easily digestible than than white paper.
So, it may not be 'another chain' but its another layer.  I can see how its not at all
accurate to call it a coin. lol.  

anyway Carlton,i'll give you a 3/10 for witty retort and 0/10 for contributing anything useful here.

Here's an interesting article BTW.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/debunking-the-most-stubborn-lightning-network-myths-1444837807

The article isn't entirely accurate though.  For example, Pieter Wuille was certainly
not a small block advocate in 2013, at least from that post where he recommended
10MB-100MB blocks. 

go home, jonald. I'll get your jacket for you.

You're gonna have to explain this one to me because I don't know enough about LN.
I thought LN did in fact transact on its chain and somehow settle on the main chain later.

See I think this is interesting. This is the kind of mistake you'd expect a n00b to make. But look at his post history. He's obviously clever enough to get this. Is this pure misinformation?