Lightning transactions go through a centralized node, and settle to the actual blockchain.
Not saying it's a bad idea, and it may be absolutely necessary for exponential scaling... but it's certainly nothing like an actual bitcoin transaction.
I look at a lightning node as a transaction aggregating machine. The spread between the fees they aggregate and what they pay to settle on the blockchain would be their motivation for existence. In a sense, they live by eating a bite out of the miner's lunch. Intentionally and artificially scarce block space... higher fees... higher competitive advantage for LN and SC... more bites of the lunch.
Topic: Why some people think Lightning Network centralizes BTC? - page 2. (Read 1751 times)
because it has relations with Blockstream therefore it must be evil.
This^^People think that because the lightning network is something that Blockstream produced which is supposedly some company that is conspiring to keep the block sizes small so that all of the transactions go through their (not) proprietary lightning network and they can make profits off of that (somehow) and then they will somehow control Bitcoin because the lightning network is theirs.
Except that the above is completely false. Blockstream does not have proprietary control over lightning and sidechains, both are all open source projects. And they aren't against block size increases, some developers with blockstream are just against BIP 101's method of a fixed schedule, and others are thinking of different ways to increase the block size. And I don't even think there is a business model with lightning that they could make profits off of (I'm not sure about that though).
Keep drinking their Kool-Aid. They want you to believe they are not taking over. But what do you think those guys who put up $20 million are thinking? Do you think they don't want to get that money back? Or, maybe they are actually thinking of getting it back with a huge multiple? Gee, I wonder what is more likely?
Dude, Blockstream will make every effort to cripple bitcoin with 1MB, so they can sell you a solution 'for a small fee'. Blockstream has bad intent. Don't believe their promotions of 'for the good of the blockchain'. That is today. Everything free. Then, we everyone depends upon the new system - BAM!!! Here come the fees!!! No way to go back now. So you will pay it.
because it has relations with Blockstream therefore it must be evil.
This^^People think that because the lightning network is something that Blockstream produced which is supposedly some company that is conspiring to keep the block sizes small so that all of the transactions go through their (not) proprietary lightning network and they can make profits off of that (somehow) and then they will somehow control Bitcoin because the lightning network is theirs.
Except that the above is completely false. Blockstream does not have proprietary control over lightning and sidechains, both are all open source projects. And they aren't against block size increases, some developers with blockstream are just against BIP 101's method of a fixed schedule, and others are thinking of different ways to increase the block size. And I don't even think there is a business model with lightning that they could make profits off of (I'm not sure about that though).
because it has relations with Blockstream therefore it must be evil.
Why do some people think vaccines cause Autism? Why are people fighting over the Starbucks coffee cup change? (some examples of not using common sense) If you have seen people claiming centralization without providing proper evidence, then they are trying to spread disinformation and delude people. In any case, it would centralize it less than going for gigabyte blocks.
It's not like we are talking about it requiring centralizing servers or something right?
No. Someone might be talking about lightning hubs but those don't require such either.
As far as I know, isn't it just a clever usage of Bitcoin script to process the transactions? It's not like we are talking about it requiring centralizing servers or something right? Because on that case it would suck, but afaik like I said before its just a cool way to deal with the scaling problem without centralizing nodes (big blocks).
Jump to: