Topic: Will the Lightning Network Solve ALL Scalability Issues? (Read 1308 times)

LN isn’t designed to solve scalability.  It’s made by FUBU and designed to be invisible from the public for numerous reasons.  The main objective is to allow for fractional reserve banking. 

We showed them.  Lol

but LN isnt hidden. part of routing is to allow the "gossip" part of the network to gather all info on the network about balances of channels... and also when payments are done the gossip updates new balance.. heck there is even graphic maps of channels, listing the channel partners and much more info than bitcoin reveals.

yes you can pretend that it offers no 'history' but if your watching live, over time you can just record your own records of the changes channels make. and then make your own 'history'

Isn't Bitcoin advertised for its privacy? Also, the LN isn't a private network. I'd say that your payment channels are just hidden from the public.

These are the ones intended to use it. If it won't be used from regular people, there's no reason to develop it. We all contribute for it, to become adopted by the crowd; to be considered the usual payment method.

I don't understand the relation between Apple and the CIA, neither this question that is suppose to... be an argument?

No, LN has its own issues and it’s more of a private network, the opposite of what Bitcoin is advertised as.  I think with a few tweaks it will be used but not us regular people.  You think apple or the CIA WANTS its opposition how money they have or are transferring and where?  The lightening network provides that privacy plus unbreakable security.   Not to mention instants coin txs not just tokens. 


V

Going back to OP, he said,


No, I believe you don’t understand that the difference is Bitcoin is an open, permissionless system that any individual and organization can use. It’s a different “flavor”, and should NEVER be compared to closed, permissioned systems that has shitcoins with doubful regulatory status in them. Gaps can’t be filled where Bitcoin can fill them.

Why are you discussing a non issue? What you say applies to everything: If one person gives something to another person and one or both disclose what they traded in public, then everybody that has this information will know what it was (unless they are lying)
Did you contact the node operator that I have posted to you and did you find out about his routings and fees? No? Instead you are talking about things that you don't know anything about. Try to keep it real! Can you follow my lightning transactions or no? Do you know somebody who can? No? If you want to know about Lightning, than learn about it and we can discuss real things. You obviously can't add something with substance to this topic.

Everything is clear with this statement. It works if only one node operator discloses the data. ( and then not always). If we return to your statement again ( and to mine), then "node operators"were used there.

Why did you decide that only ONE node operator will give its data. Where there is one, there are 2, and 3, ... And here everything depends on the number.

Let's take the end users who will not keep the routed nodes. If one end user makes a transaction to another end user, then most likely 2 nodes (the sender node and the recipient node) are enough for the whole world to know about this transaction. And if we take into account that in the future, with a significant development of LN, there will be 98-99% of such end users,then the privacy of LN looks less convincing.

The split? There was never a “split”. It was Bcash that hard forked into an incompatible-with-Bitcoin-shitcoin. Bitcoin continued on without the minority led by Roger Ver, and Jihan Wu. Plus the community has spoken, look at how much little Bcash’s value is compared to Bitcoin today.

You didn't understand this part:


Means, if a node operator makes his data public, he will only lose his own privacy. Just like everyone who makes his finances available to public, because he doesn't know where the money is coming from and where it went to. The english proverb you provided doesn't apply to lightning, because when three know it, only these three now it and the rest of the 12000 nodes doesn't know shit.

you really have no clue about history or facts
seriously go check actual blockchain data.. not your friends opinon and dream

it was not those opposing segwit that changed code in their software to create an altcoin
it was the segwit side that arranged the NYA flag to ignore legacy blocks to cause a split.

also compared to 2009 hardware/bandwidth limitations to which satoshi decided 1mb was ok limit
things have moved on since then. on average hardware/internet has increased 33x
yet the blockchain is struggling to get passed only 2.5k tx a block since 2017


what you are finding is average joe just wanting to buy coffee will not want to carry around a desktop computer to make LN payments 'coz decentralised full node required'
they end up not giving a crap about bitcoin and just deposit fiat into a central exchange and have the exchange manage their micropayment millisat token channel. thus avoiding any need of caring worrying,securing bitcoin

its like accepting bank notes. no one cares about securing the bank vault of gold. thats for the vault owner to do and people are not vault owners. they are paper holders.

LN will cause more people to move away from using bitcoin as a full node because they are not doing daily things onchain to want/need to keep a full node open all day everyday

removing bitcoins daily utility makes average joe not be full nodes. leaving only large central services to be the full nodes. (like the NYA guys)

Your initial statement was :"Nobody can tell you which amounts are forwarded and which aren't, unless node operators make it public.".
 And this is a true statement. From this statement another true statement follows:
 If node operators make their data public, then everything will be bad with privacy in LN.

No one can guarantee that node operators will not do this. You can only believe in it. But, as the English proverb says, "When three know it, all know it".

What has Coinbase, a centralized exchange renowned for being anti-privacy and working with governments and surveillance agencies, selling customer data, got to do with Lightning nodes leaking information about the transactions they are routing? You might as well say that you cannot use Tor nodes because Facebook collect your data. Complete non sequitur.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I would worry about splitting the user base across too many solutions. "I want to pay via scaling solution 1", "Oh sorry, I only accept scaling solution 2, and the other merchant down the street uses scaling solution 3". I agree Lightning is not a holy grail - at least not yet. One of nice things about Lightning though is that different pieces of it can be upgraded or changed individually - see Eltoo for example. I think I'd like to see more people adopting and driving the development of Lightning to make it better before we start introducing additional solutions.

Bitcoin is plenty decentralized, you simply can’t accept the fact that the community came into consensus that it likes the Core developers to be the rightful stewards of the network, not those developers who proposed for those forked-shitcoins.

Every single one of us would like to see all the scalability problems to be solved of course. But there is not a perfect system built yet. So after Lightning Network, I guess there will still be some problems. But they won't be on a large scale like now.

In addition to this, there are other shortcomings as opposed to traditional transferring of Bitcoin that I find will someday cause problems.  Lightning is not a bad addition to Bitcoin, but it isn't the holy grail it is portrayed to be.  I personally would prefer multiple different methods of scaling but I am not in charge.  I would say that the explosion of alternative crypto blockchains is good evidence I am not alone in this thinking, but they aren't Bitcoin.  Hopefully someday the community can come up with a better scaling solution that is supported by a higher % of crypto participants. 

What I'm saying is, that node operators only know about the routings of their own node. They don't know the origin and they don't know the destination of a transaction unless they started it themselve. Most of the node operators are completely unknown btw. So if somebody shares the info about the tx he was routing and how much fee he earned, you still don't know anything about the other nodes and you might never find out. Everybody is free to tell you how much Bitcoin he has, still many people won't tell you.

Just to show you the problem: Try to contact this node with a liquidity of more than 7 BTC 02fb22354383c240f9a04b194d610186cdec1045d961cb7989f254cb7c96498ab5@opwodusf33oapzmpg7nmtpjtdpauaa2m6ym2y6yvm7t2ju34x4jmctqd.onion:9735 and find out how much routings he has and how much fee he earns. If you achieved this (which I doubt you will), you still don't know much, because he can lie to you and also he doesnt know about origins and destinations of the txs he routed.

Nah, never happens.


oops

it did

https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/coinbase-admits-its-former-data-provider-sold-client-data/

That is, your confidence that LN is confidential is based only on the assumption that node operators will not transmit transaction data to anyone.

Does anyone believe that messengers are confidential, just because they will not share their information with anyone?

Only if a protocol is locked down and free of governance for years like tcp/ip - you can consider that 'decentralized'. Open for all + free to launch server, miners, services, apps whatsover with that - max freedom is there (no pain in terms of capacity + long term planning - where new middle men can & want your toll & fee formost basic use)

I’m honestly confused with big blockers. They criticize the Lightning Network, because it might have the tendency to centralize, and their proposed solution is to hard fork to bigger blocks, which for them it would be more preferrable to centralize the base layer, reducing security.