Pages:
Author

Topic: What is The Lightning Network ? (Read 1133 times)

hero member
Activity: 679
Merit: 500
April 30, 2016, 01:38:26 PM
#26


Will the different LN be interoperable?
There should be only 1 LN.



Poon's lightening network will be ready this summer, then you have blockstream dev rusty rusell who is also working on a different lightening network. There are also a few other project working on their own lightening network so what makes you think that there will only be 1 LN? which would it be and why ?
legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1002
= jasad =
April 30, 2016, 09:42:52 AM
#25
Quote
Transactions for the Future

Instant Payments. Lightning-fast blockchain payments without worrying about block confirmation times. Security is enforced by blockchain smart-contracts without creating a on-blockchain transaction for individual payments. Payment speed measured in milliseconds to seconds.

Scalability. Capable of millions to billions of transactions per second across the network. Capacity blows away legacy payment rails by many orders of magnitude. Attaching payment per action/click is now possible without custodians.

Low Cost. By transacting and settling off-blockchain, the Lightning Network allows for exceptionally low fees, which allows for emerging use cases such as instant micropayments.

Cross Blockchains. Cross-chain atomic swaps can occur off-chain instantly with heterogeneous blockchain consensus rules. So long as the chains can support the same cryptographic hash function, it is possible to make transactions across blockchains without trust in 3rd party custodians.
this is should be a great future of transaction,i wish this transaction more faster and really low cost,i really apreciated for the creator or founder of this network,is the founder Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2970
Terminated.
April 30, 2016, 02:16:01 AM
#24
How would this be used, who are alice and bob in this case?
Is it used between two large companies? can you use it for your groceries?
Okay so the idea behind wallet-to-wallet routing can be explained by an example that includes a grocery shop:
Alice and Bob are normal people; could be anyone. Alice has an open channel with a Coffee shop. Bob has a channel to the Coffee shop and to a grocery store. The idea here is that Alice is able to use these connections (Alice -> Coffee Shop -> Bob -> Grocery shop) to buy from the grocery store even though she does not have a direct connection to it.

Will the different LN be interoperable?
There should be only 1 LN.

hero member
Activity: 679
Merit: 500
April 29, 2016, 08:56:50 PM
#23
Will the different LN be interoperable? I hope so otherwise its going to get really confusing with all the different lightening projects.


legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1005
April 29, 2016, 08:34:11 PM
#22
Well, I don't think that the definition of LN (e.g. LN is X) has been used widely and even if you try searching for it you might fail to find one. The Lightning Network is supposed to represent complex, bi-directional payment channels. The idea behind it is that e.g. Alice and Bob open up a payment channel between them and lock X amount of funds (this process currently takes ~30 minutes, i.e. 3 confirmations) in it. What makes Lightning so 'special' here (in the terms of scalability) is that it enables a theoretically infinite amount of transactions between Alice and Bob without bloating the blockchain (imagine 1 million transactions between two partners, and only a single TX to settle on the main chain). Transacting within the LN is both instant and trust.less. It might even improve privacy at some point as there are potential unknown use cases.

If it's the case then when we are supposed to see it ?
IIRC someone said that a working implementation should be available soon (I assume beta).

How would this be used, who are alice and bob in this case?

Is it used between two large companies? can you use it for your groceries?

The lightning network will allow the network to scale by allowing the vast majority of transactions to happen off the blockchain
it's a secure micropayment channel

Lightning network might help scale Bitcoin, but not by much in my opinion. The problem is it scales based on the two factors

1) how long your willing to lock your Bitcoins (the longer the better potential scaling, but the concept of depositing equivalent of several thousand $ to be able to spend anytime at let say starbuck for the next half year is so out of normal people behaviour who dont have big wealth reserves and just living from day to day with their expences)

2) the number of people willing to use such pre deposit and lock Bitcoins for longer period method

in this case it would be more like a store specific gift card than actual money.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
April 29, 2016, 08:11:02 PM
#21

My prediction is that we'll probably end up with a somewhat centralised approach and I do agree that getting the balance right is going to be important.


Exactly what i was thinking! nothing obligatory but needed to achiev a better performance.
staff
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6152
April 29, 2016, 02:23:44 PM
#20
Great question to be honest i am not sure my self but i think it has something to do with require lwss information in the chain , something like that. Huh

I'm not sure if you are spamming or you simply didn't see the answers but Lauda explained pretty much everything about it : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14700597

@Everyone , thank you for your answers. I will keep this topic open for further discussions Smiley
hero member
Activity: 1106
Merit: 521
April 29, 2016, 02:09:15 PM
#19
Great question to be honest i am not sure my self but i think it has something to do with require lwss information in the chain , something like that. Huh
sr. member
Activity: 285
Merit: 251
April 29, 2016, 02:03:10 PM
#18
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1036
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2970
Terminated.
April 29, 2016, 08:43:00 AM
#16
For me, "off-chain" is a bad description, it emphasises a potential derogatory aspect; "mempool-verified" or "network verified" are both better tags for what Lightning does IMO.
There are many misrepresentations of LN, not to mention all the FUD that 'certain members' have spread in regards to it. There are even people who call it an altcoin which obviously does not make sense in any case.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
April 29, 2016, 04:56:32 AM
#15
To me, Lightning is just using the mempool (transactions that haven't cleared yet) as a scratchpad to assemble the most space efficient configuration for transactions before they hit the main chain. Users normally take that upon themselves, Lightning just does it for you in a way that would be too impractical for most users. That's kind of smart, because every tx output that goes through Lightning already has "blockchain" integrity, so all the verification those outputs are subject to is equivalent to a regular Bitcoin transaction after it's relayed as valid (but before it gets mined into a block).

For me, "off-chain" is a bad description, it emphasises a potential derogatory aspect; "mempool-verified" or "network verified" are both better tags for what Lightning does IMO.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2970
Terminated.
April 29, 2016, 03:33:56 AM
#14
I wont be using such highly centralized system at all...
Nobody is forcing you to use it either. You are still free to transact solely on the main chain.

If the decentralized routing can ever exist and is implemented then all fine. But unless I see working solution, I dont give it much faith its even possible.
So (mostly) baseless doubting and skepticism is your approach here? LN is among the best proposals that we've seen so far. Unless someone comes up with something better, we are going in that direction. The question is not whether it is possible, the question is how and when (just talk to the developers and/or track the Github pages for more insight). Besides, without something of this kind you can forget about 'mainstream Bitcoin'.

My prediction is that we'll probably end up with a somewhat centralised approach and I do agree that getting the balance right is going to be important.
Decentralized routing is much harder than it sounds. We shall see what will happen.
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
April 29, 2016, 03:27:31 AM
#13
Thats the biggest issue because the "routing" is very centralized.

That will depend upon exactly how the design comes together (it isn't completed yet AFAIA).

Of course the more decentralised such routing is the better off we are in terms of having an anti-fragile network but also decentralisation does come at a performance cost (which is why off-chain solutions are required in order to boost the TPS to the same sorts of levels that networks such as VISA and Mastercard currently provide).

My prediction is that we'll probably end up with a somewhat centralised approach and I do agree that getting the balance right is going to be important.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
April 29, 2016, 03:23:39 AM
#12
It should also be noted that payment "routing" is also a key feature of the LN design (so you wouldn't need a separate channel for every possible service and/or goods provider you are paying).

Thats the biggest issue because the "routing" is very centralized. Basically everyone lock their Bitcoins to one LN provider who has all the chanels open for every possible service and/or goods providers. If this turn out to be the case in the end (one dominant player where you have to lock your Bitcoins to use everywhere), I wont be using such highly centralized system at all...


Again, the exact features have yet to be fully decided and implemented.

If the decentralized routing can ever exist and is implemented then all fine. But unless I see working solution, I dont give it much faith its even possible.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
April 29, 2016, 03:18:09 AM
#11
Lightning Network is it was proposed in the context of bitcoin but actually it also applies to sidechains which are an extension mechanism for bitcoins.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2970
Terminated.
April 29, 2016, 03:08:20 AM
#10
Lightning network might help scale Bitcoin, but not by much in my opinion. The problem is it scales based on the two factors

1) how long your willing to lock your Bitcoins (the longer the better potential scaling, but the concept of depositing equivalent of several thousand $ to be able to spend anytime at let say starbuck for the next half year is so out of normal people behaviour who dont have big wealth reserves and just living from day to day with their expences)

2) the number of people willing to use such pre deposit and lock Bitcoins for longer period method
This doesn't necessarily have to be true. If Alice opens a channel with a Coffee Shop, that does not mean that Alice won't be able to pay anyone outside of it (hubs, wallet routing?). There isn't much different to keeping your coins within LN than keeping them in your wallet (if the infrastructure is there). Read (example of wallet routing, not hubs):



Again, the exact features have yet to be fully decided and implemented.

What I meant is , the blockchain (the 45gb file or whatever the current size) will have his size increased just like now ?
It will continue to increase at a similar pace as it is doing now.

having multiple transactions in one TX won't change that ?
What multiple transactions? You only need 1 TX to settle.


Update: Several corrections.
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
April 29, 2016, 03:05:41 AM
#9
The LN txs (apart from the channel opening and closing) are "off-chain" so they are not contributing to any size cost whatsoever.

It should also be noted that payment "routing" is also a key feature of the LN design (so you wouldn't need a separate channel for every possible service and/or goods provider you are paying).

Another important thing is that LN allows Bitcoin to become suitable for things like paying for "live streaming" (e.g. pay an amount per second) which is something Bitcoin itself could never scale up to do.
staff
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6152
April 29, 2016, 03:04:09 AM
#8
I see , It sounds nice honestly but taht doesn't mean that the size of the blockchain won't increase right ?
It does not mean that indeed. However, technically you don't need to increase it (yet) as LN at 1 MB can accommodate a lot of users.

even if there is different transaction in one TX blockchain size should increase ?
What does this mean?

so we should see this updates with SegWit , means Bitcoin Core 0.12.2 ?
Segwit should come within 0.12.X (either 2 or three). I have no idea how they are going to finalize LN at the moment. There are multiple implementations and the advanced ones will come to some sort of agreement on the exact parameters.


P.S. Ignore the two posters under your post (pointless posts due to signature).

What I meant is , the blockchain (the 45gb file or whatever the current size) will have his size increased just like now ?
having multiple transactions in one TX won't change that ?

(I'm not speaking about the size of the block) which I suppose should be increased to 2mb next year if there is enough community support (no one knows how this is calculated anyway)
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
April 29, 2016, 03:00:06 AM
#7
The lightning network will allow the network to scale by allowing the vast majority of transactions to happen off the blockchain
it's a secure micropayment channel

Lightning network might help scale Bitcoin, but not by much in my opinion. The problem is it scales based on the two factors

1) how long your willing to lock your Bitcoins (the longer the better potential scaling, but the concept of depositing equivalent of several thousand $ to be able to spend anytime at let say starbuck for the next half year is so out of normal people behaviour who dont have big wealth reserves and just living from day to day with their expences)

2) the number of people willing to use such pre deposit and lock Bitcoins for longer period method
Pages:
Jump to: