4 ms·

Lightning network is the fix. It essentially makes bitcoin transactions lightning channels rather than recording every transaction that ever existed. Raising th

by um_ya 10y ago

Lightning network is the fix. It essentially makes bitcoin transactions lightning channels rather than recording every transaction that ever existed. Raising the block size won't solve anything, it will only make miners store more data and transfer more data. Lighting network solves all of this, and the concept is actually pretty simple and very secure once you understand it.

mhluongo 10y ago
Lightning is a fix, not the fix. Even with lightning, we need bigger blocks (and a number of other measures) to scale.
- TheBlight 10y ago
  LN doesn't even exist. There's no design for how it will function at scale as dishonestly advertised.
CookieMon 10y ago
It's an awesome feature, but it's not a fix - Lightning requires a 24/7 online connection, which will also combine with several other pressures to strongly favor central hubs, putting easily regulated payment processors back in change of who can spend money (a bad thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11944011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11944011). Plus it won't work (in the sense of saving blockchain space) for people who have few peers and tend to move money in one direction, e.g. a consumer connected to a "paypal"-like lightning service who makes purchases but doesn't sell online, this could be a significant portion of users. It's a great extension to Bitcoin, but it shouldn't be confused with what Bitcoin does.
- onetallnerd 10y ago
  No. You don't. It can be set to having to be on at least once a week, or trustlessly outsourcing the requirement.
  - CookieMon 10y ago
    Bitcoin doesn't require weekly check-ins, but Good to know (thanks) - that's a less extreme requirement for Lightning. However, being online wasn't a main pressure for the potential problem of central hubs. (e.g. the large parked capital requirements acting as a barrier to entry, fees - if bitcoin is to be a low-volume settlement layer - plus people wanting to keep spending money consolidated (i.e. opening as few channels as possible) while still getting the benefit of complete payment connectivity)
  - tomtomtom777 10y ago
    > trustlessly outsourcing the requirement Unless I missed something, outsourcing watching the blockchain cannot be called trustless; they need to know what to watch. If your watcher collaborates with your LN-hub, you are doomed. Here is my get-rich-quick-scheme: * Setup a big LN hub. * Setup a LN-watching service Then for each peer connected to both, I filter those that: * have a balance with <10% on my side * have an earlier balance with >90% on my side * haven't been seen for a week. For those, I submit the tx of the earlier balance. Sometimes I'll lose a bit but mostly I will gain more. Profit.
wellthissukz 10y ago
No. the lighting network is a scheme to prevent on-chain scaling.

by um_ya 10y ago

mhluongo 10y ago

Lightning is a fix, not the fix. Even with lightning, we need bigger blocks (and a number of other measures) to scale.

TheBlight 10y ago
LN doesn't even exist. There's no design for how it will function at scale as dishonestly advertised.

CookieMon 10y ago

It's an awesome feature, but it's not a fix - Lightning requires a 24/7 online connection, which will also combine with several other pressures to strongly favor central hubs, putting easily regulated payment processors back in change of who can spend money (a bad thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11944011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11944011). Plus it won't work (in the sense of saving blockchain space) for people who have few peers and tend to move money in one direction, e.g. a consumer connected to a "paypal"-like lightning service who makes purchases but doesn't sell online, this could be a significant portion of users. It's a great extension to Bitcoin, but it shouldn't be confused with what Bitcoin does.

onetallnerd 10y ago
No. You don't. It can be set to having to be on at least once a week, or trustlessly outsourcing the requirement.
- CookieMon 10y ago
  Bitcoin doesn't require weekly check-ins, but Good to know (thanks) - that's a less extreme requirement for Lightning. However, being online wasn't a main pressure for the potential problem of central hubs. (e.g. the large parked capital requirements acting as a barrier to entry, fees - if bitcoin is to be a low-volume settlement layer - plus people wanting to keep spending money consolidated (i.e. opening as few channels as possible) while still getting the benefit of complete payment connectivity)
- tomtomtom777 10y ago
  > trustlessly outsourcing the requirement Unless I missed something, outsourcing watching the blockchain cannot be called trustless; they need to know what to watch. If your watcher collaborates with your LN-hub, you are doomed. Here is my get-rich-quick-scheme: * Setup a big LN hub. * Setup a LN-watching service Then for each peer connected to both, I filter those that: * have a balance with <10% on my side * have an earlier balance with >90% on my side * haven't been seen for a week. For those, I submit the tx of the earlier balance. Sometimes I'll lose a bit but mostly I will gain more. Profit.

wellthissukz 10y ago

No. the lighting network is a scheme to prevent on-chain scaling.