3 ms·

2. Where is the evidence of this? Sure, routing can be easy and short if it's centralized and the number of hops is small. But, if it's centralized, then what's

2. Where is the evidence of this? Sure, routing can be easy and short if it's centralized and the number of hops is small. But, if it's centralized, then what's the point of using Bitcoin? Where is this mystical routing algorithm that will work in the presence of constant capacity changes over a decentralized network? 3. The issue here is that the flow for all channels across the entire network needs to be about balanced for things to work out properly. Once someone starts either net accumulating bitcoin or net dispersing bitcoin, then there will be problems somewhere on some link. 4. I can take money out of my checking account at any time at no expense.

Klathmon 9y ago
About 2, like I said we should know soon if it will work. I just don't think that most channels will be updating as quickly as you think, and even if they are, a channel will know of someone is trying to route through it, so it can avoid trying to route another tx for the duration of the first. 3. Fees can and will help balance things out. If a channel is really unbalanced, negative fees can strongly incentivize rebalancing in many cases. If it starts to get unbalanced again, fees can increase to help reduce the speed that it unbalances. 4. You can also take money out of LN at any time (assuming your counterparty I cooperative). Only in the case of non-cooperation do you need to wait for locks to expire, and in that case you get ALL money from both sides of the channel, and need to wait for the lock to expire. Id love it if my bank could give me 2x my money if it takes more than 3 days for me to get my money...
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > You can also take money out of LN at any time (assuming your counterparty I cooperative) This isn’t what people mean when they imply liquidity. Needing consent and being able to unilaterally demand cash are different domains. The former is e.g. a holding in a fund or coins in a LN, the latter is a consumer checking account. > Id love it if my bank could give me 2x my money if it takes more than 3 days for me to get my money Or lost 90%. We had this in the era of free banking, i.e. pre Federal Reserve. We then split the speculation and transfer functions of our financial system and ended up better for it.
  - Klathmon 9y ago
    >This isn’t what people mean when they imply liquidity. Needing consent and being able to demand cash are different domains. I don't understand what you are trying to say here. You don't need "consent" if you want to wait the 3 days, but if you get "consent" from your counterparty you can get it instantly. 3-days is about as fast as ACH. But if you want, you can feel free to open channels with shorter locktimes if needed. >Or lost 90%. We had this in the era of free banking, i.e. pre Federal Reserve. That history is one Bitcoin is presently replaying. But you can't lose money if LN is working correctly. The whole idea is that you sign the transactions saying "if this is broadcast under these conditions, you get all of my money" when you open the channel. It's literally not possible to fractionally lend on LN, because all money MUST be there, and signed, for you to use it. I've had conversations with you before, and I'm fairly sure you don't understand the basics of Bitcoin as you keep repeating these things as fact, so I'm going to stop replying here. Please make an effort to understand it before you start denouncing it. Or at least explain why you think these apply to the conversation in ways that someone like myself who isn't well-versed in traditional banking systems but understands Bitcoin technically will understand.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > if you get "consent" from your counterparty you can get it instantly. 3-days is about as fast as ACH You said, like a checking account, one “can also take money out of LN at any time.” I clarified that when people say “take money out at any time,” they mean unilateral liquidity. You can unilaterally demand cash or an instantaneous Fedwire transfer, the latter which costs 3 to 69 cents [1] (though some banks heftily upcharge this service), against your checking account balance. It takes a good deal longer to settle a LN balance (theoretically). TL; DR The Lightning Network has some neat features, but pitching its liquidity as analogous to a checking account’s is disingenuous. > you can't lose money if LN is working correctly This applies to anything. In finance, things never work correctly because someone, somewhere, can be trusted to be an arsehole. > It's literally not possible to fractionally lend on LN The number of Americans who have lost a single U.S. dollar to this threat since the FDIC was formed is basically zero. The number of Americans who have nuked substantial fractions of their net worths speculating on Bitcoin is significantly greater. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fedfunds_coreprinciples.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fedfunds_corep...
freejulian 9y ago
Lightning uses the same routing algorithm as tor — it’s an onion router. It has the added benefit of no one in the network knowing where transactions are from or whom they’re to. With regards to channel capacity — fees in lightning are proportional to the amount of the transaction. If you are sending a transaction which consumes a large amount of capacity, you pay a high fee. Note how this is a fundamental difference from onchain transactions where fees are proportional to the amount of block space used. Lightning is more akin to an atm. You pay a fee to take out cash, but you can then transact instantly all day with nearly no fees.
- philipwhiuk 9y ago
  Tor has a centralised list of exit nodes.
  - Klathmon 9y ago
    which doesn't apply to tor hidden services, which work fine without an exit node.

Klathmon 9y ago

About 2, like I said we should know soon if it will work. I just don't think that most channels will be updating as quickly as you think, and even if they are, a channel will know of someone is trying to route through it, so it can avoid trying to route another tx for the duration of the first. 3. Fees can and will help balance things out. If a channel is really unbalanced, negative fees can strongly incentivize rebalancing in many cases. If it starts to get unbalanced again, fees can increase to help reduce the speed that it unbalances. 4. You can also take money out of LN at any time (assuming your counterparty I cooperative). Only in the case of non-cooperation do you need to wait for locks to expire, and in that case you get ALL money from both sides of the channel, and need to wait for the lock to expire. Id love it if my bank could give me 2x my money if it takes more than 3 days for me to get my money...

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> You can also take money out of LN at any time (assuming your counterparty I cooperative) This isn’t what people mean when they imply liquidity. Needing consent and being able to unilaterally demand cash are different domains. The former is e.g. a holding in a fund or coins in a LN, the latter is a consumer checking account. > Id love it if my bank could give me 2x my money if it takes more than 3 days for me to get my money Or lost 90%. We had this in the era of free banking, i.e. pre Federal Reserve. We then split the speculation and transfer functions of our financial system and ended up better for it.
- Klathmon 9y ago
  >This isn’t what people mean when they imply liquidity. Needing consent and being able to demand cash are different domains. I don't understand what you are trying to say here. You don't need "consent" if you want to wait the 3 days, but if you get "consent" from your counterparty you can get it instantly. 3-days is about as fast as ACH. But if you want, you can feel free to open channels with shorter locktimes if needed. >Or lost 90%. We had this in the era of free banking, i.e. pre Federal Reserve. That history is one Bitcoin is presently replaying. But you can't lose money if LN is working correctly. The whole idea is that you sign the transactions saying "if this is broadcast under these conditions, you get all of my money" when you open the channel. It's literally not possible to fractionally lend on LN, because all money MUST be there, and signed, for you to use it. I've had conversations with you before, and I'm fairly sure you don't understand the basics of Bitcoin as you keep repeating these things as fact, so I'm going to stop replying here. Please make an effort to understand it before you start denouncing it. Or at least explain why you think these apply to the conversation in ways that someone like myself who isn't well-versed in traditional banking systems but understands Bitcoin technically will understand.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > if you get "consent" from your counterparty you can get it instantly. 3-days is about as fast as ACH You said, like a checking account, one “can also take money out of LN at any time.” I clarified that when people say “take money out at any time,” they mean unilateral liquidity. You can unilaterally demand cash or an instantaneous Fedwire transfer, the latter which costs 3 to 69 cents [1] (though some banks heftily upcharge this service), against your checking account balance. It takes a good deal longer to settle a LN balance (theoretically). TL; DR The Lightning Network has some neat features, but pitching its liquidity as analogous to a checking account’s is disingenuous. > you can't lose money if LN is working correctly This applies to anything. In finance, things never work correctly because someone, somewhere, can be trusted to be an arsehole. > It's literally not possible to fractionally lend on LN The number of Americans who have lost a single U.S. dollar to this threat since the FDIC was formed is basically zero. The number of Americans who have nuked substantial fractions of their net worths speculating on Bitcoin is significantly greater. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fedfunds_coreprinciples.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fedfunds_corep...

freejulian 9y ago

Lightning uses the same routing algorithm as tor — it’s an onion router. It has the added benefit of no one in the network knowing where transactions are from or whom they’re to. With regards to channel capacity — fees in lightning are proportional to the amount of the transaction. If you are sending a transaction which consumes a large amount of capacity, you pay a high fee. Note how this is a fundamental difference from onchain transactions where fees are proportional to the amount of block space used. Lightning is more akin to an atm. You pay a fee to take out cash, but you can then transact instantly all day with nearly no fees.

philipwhiuk 9y ago
Tor has a centralised list of exit nodes.
- Klathmon 9y ago
  which doesn't apply to tor hidden services, which work fine without an exit node.