The main block chain nodes needs to cooperate with LN nodes for the protocol to
work
You'll have to explain what you mean by cooperate.
Lightning Network requires that the channel participants open a channel by broadcasting a transaction that gets confirmed in the blockchain. This is no different than any other bitcoin transaction, and requires no more cooperation from "main block chain nodes" than any other transaction would require. After that transaction gets confirmed and the channel is therefore opened, the transactions over the Lightning Network do not require any additional cooperation from "block chain nodes".
so unless they hardwired a few nodes to get it going then I am not sure how it would work
on broadcasts to the BTC network unless that part was already released in Bitcoin core 0.15.1
I assume you are talking about the implementation of SegWit? That's been available on the BTC network for a while now.
Interesting and about 650 channel when I looked and already we can see banker hubs that have forty channels or so
You say "banker hubs", I say "individuals that have opened lots of channels".
They provide no banking services. They collect no fees. Any user can skip them and connect to any other user if they want to.
and that means that someone must have lots of money to deposit in new channels
Or it means that someone opened many channels with a very small amount of funds in each channel.
for these large inter bank transfer's
There are no banks, (at least not yet). Therefore, there are no "inter bank transfers".
Please correct me if I am wrong but in the ledger connecting Bob to the banking hub requires the bank to deposit $100 in it if Alice on
the far side of the network is to send Bob $100 and if she wants to send him $200 then it would not be allowed because money
cannot be moved from ledger to ledger because the BTC-Block chain only allows the existing money to be settled on block.
You really need to start using the common use Lightning Network words when you talk about the Lightning Network or you are going to cause a lot of confusion for yourself and others.
- When you say "in the ledger connecting Bob", I assume you are talking about a Lightning Network channel?
- When you say "to the banking hub", I assume you mean to imply that Bob has chosen to only open a channel to ONE other Lightning Network user, and the user that Bob has established a channel with has chosen to connect to open channels with many other users?
- When you say "requires the bank to deposit $100 in it", I assume you mean that the ONE channel that Bob opened is funded with $100 worth of bitcoins by the person Bob chose to connect to?
- When you say "Alice on the far side of the network", I assume you mean that Alice is a Lightning Network user, that she has at least one channel open, that there is a valid funded route for sending $100 worth of Bitcoins from her to Bob?
- When you say "if she wants to send him $200 then it would not be allowed because money cannot be moved from ledger to ledger", I assume you mean that Alice can't send more to Bob than the net funds available in the channel that is connected to Bob?
- When you say "because the BTC-Block chain only allows the existing money to be settled on block", I assume you mean that funds in one Lightning Network Channel cannot move to another channel, and that users with an unbalanced channel might in some circumstances need to close the channel and use the funds from the closed channel to re-open a new channel?
Bob Banks
There are no banks (yet). There may never be banks.
Regardless the process works the same, so lets substitute Charlie in for the user that you keep calling "Bank". It will make it clearer. Sicne you insist on using $ amounts instead of BTC amounts, we'll also assume that the exchange rate between $ and BTC doesn't change at all during that time.
Bob opens a channel (Lets call it channel B-C) with Charlie.
Bob funds the channel with $100 worth of bitcoins, and Charlie funds the channel with $100 worth of bitcoins.
Alice opens a channel with Charlie (Lets call it channel A-C) with Charlie.
Alice funds the channel with $200 worth of bitcoins, and Charlie funds the channel with $0 worth of bitcoins.
Alice establishes a route through Charlie to Bob and sends $100 worth of bitcoins
After that:
The A-C channel state has $100 worth of bitcoins that Charlie can send through the channel to Alice and $100 worth of bitcoins that Alice can send to Charlie.
The B-C channel state has $200 worth of bitcoins that Bob can send through the channel to Charlie and $0 worth of bitcoins that Charlie can send to Bob.
Unless Bob starts spending then no one can now send him any money
If that is the ENTIRE network, then you are correct that no one can send him any money through Lightning Network (although they could still send a non-Lightning Bitcoin transaction if they want to. However, it is possible that Bob could already have (or could open) other channels with other users, or Bob could open a new channel with Charlie.
My understanding is that Bobs and Alice might have wallets but unless they have lots of buttons to press then they will not be in a position to use much of the LN protocol
Why do they need buttons? Can't they just use wallets that can establish a lightning channel?
but the banker hubs will have custom software that gives them the advantage.
Why won't Bob and Alice have access to similar software?
Miners will run the banking hubs because they need bandwidth, hardware, lots of BTC and understand the nuts and bolts.
When you say "miners" I assume you mean "Mining pool operators"? Because most of the hashers that I've talked to most certainly do NOT "understand the nuts and bolts".
Furthermore, exchanges could choose to set up enough channels to be considered a "hub". Payment processors could choose to set up enough channels to be considered a "hub". Businesses that handle BTC payroll could choose to set up enough channels to be considered a "hub". Anyone that currently runs a "full node" probably already has the necessary "bandwidth, hardware, and understanding of the nuts and bolts" to choose to set up enough channels to be considered a "hub". It doesn't require much bitcoins to open a channel.
I don't think the word "Monopoly" means what you seem to think it means.
That being said, I will agree that it would be nice if there weren't any mining pools with access to more than 5% of the global hash power. The current distribution isn't my preferred balance, but it works.
I can already change from one high street bank to another if fees become too high so was ten major LN hubs to put up the fees
then this will have a ripple effect as the fees will move down to main branch, sub-branch and then on to Bob & Alice
I'm having a difficult time following what you are trying to say there. I have an account with my local Credit Union. I have an pleasantly low interest rate on my mortgage and car loan, and I don't pay any other fees for any of the services that I use. There are services that have fees, but I don't use any of those services.
I have already come across the term "Virtually free transactions fees" in the bitcoin white paper
I've seen you use this "Virtually free transactions fees" statement multiple times now.
I've checked the whitepaper and I don't see that statement in there at all. Can you please tell me where to find it, or did you just make that up so you can sound angry about something that doesn't exist?
and won't be trusting them a second time
Who is this "them" that you speak of? The bitcoin white paper was written by Satoshi Nakamoto. He was not involved in the creation of Lightning Network at all.
