3 ms·
Lightning isn’t vaporware. Follow the project on github, they are very active. Better yet, watch the first lightning transaction happen on mainnet which occur
by etr-strike 9y ago
Lightning isn’t vaporware. Follow the project on github, they are very active. Better yet, watch the first lightning transaction happen on mainnet which occurred just last week: https://youtu.be/a73Gz3Tvx3k https://youtu.be/a73Gz3Tvx3k
With regards to blocksize, the only reason it’s not widely embraced is because it’s known to directly impact propagation delay. One side couldn’t care less about centralization, the other side cares dearly. SegWit was activated, which compresses transaction size and doubles transactions per second without impacting propagation delay. Mimble Wimble and Schnorr signatures are coming soon, which are also soft forks and compress transaction size even further. There’s plenty of change happening that are all very intelligent scaling solutions. Big blocks are not intelligent nor difficult to implement.
- Beejeepa 9y agoIt's not only vaporware, it's uneconomical. That demo doesn't withdraw Bitcoin - it locks it up. Two transactions for every channel. Lightning Network is just another bank, a third party with fees.
- gruez 9y ago>Lightning Network is just another bank, a third party with fees. source? afaik it's open source and it charges no fees.
- etr-strike 9y agoStrange definition of vaporware you have, considering I just showed you lightning network operating across three different implementations of the protocol on the main bitcoin network.
- jondubois 9y agoThe lightning network is not a decentralized solution. It gives more power/trust to a few large exchanges.
- theWatcher37 9y agoThis is by design. If you break bitcoin, such that it’s only usable by large financial institutions, you completely remove the decentralized nature that made it attractive in the first place. Congratulations guys, you made the banks SWIFT 2.0. I’m sure they appreciate it very much.
- etr-strike 9y agoHow is allowing two parties to transact off chain, and settle up later on chain, not a decentralized solution?
- jondubois 9y agoBecause of the cost involved in setting up a channel. It's still not suitable for paying for a coffee or restaurant for example... Unless the cafe/restaurant happens to have an existing channel with an exchange that you yourself happen to also have a channel with; then you pay through that exchange... You can see how in this hypothetical word, it would be better to have fewer exchanges... More centralization.
- rejschaap 9y agoThe lightning network is actually a textbook example of a decentralized network. But I agree, how it will work out in practice is unclear and it could lead to centralization. I see it as a trade off between cost and convenience on one side and freedom on the other.