3 ms·

A mesh network that requires YOU to be online to receive funds. Also you must have funds to open a channel. So in order to receive funds you must have funds alr

A mesh network that requires YOU to be online to receive funds. Also you must have funds to open a channel. So in order to receive funds you must have funds already. It seems like a really big step backwards in big big scheme of things bitcoin. All of the above problems can be solved by increasing the block size. I'm not saying it's the definitive solution... but right now it is a better solution. A good talk about really big blocks on bitcoin and what the ramifications are; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M

45h34jh53k4j 9y ago
No, you dont need funds to receive them. An unfunded node can receive and transact over a peer funded channel. There are services like strike that offer custodial lightning channels, and will aggregate and send onchain tx's: https://medium.com/@ACINQ/introducing-strike-a-stripe-like-api-for-lightning-c84762f4f634 https://medium.com/@ACINQ/introducing-strike-a-stripe-like-a... While the network has such low fees as today, there is no need to increase the blocksize. Increasing the blocksize (or time) effects scalability in epic ways -- ie: Ethereum requires at least 500GB SSD to run -- so the minimum cost of entry is at least $300. Meanwhile 10m/1MB blocks still runs on $20 RPis. I am not against mods to consensus to increase the block size, but there are more critical problems like solving tx malleability and new tx format (segwit) that provide more value today. Dont be an ignorant big blocker. Look at the smartest people in this space. The real technical folk. What are they saying?
- davidgerard 9y ago
  > Dont be an ignorant big blocker. Look at the smartest people in this space. The real technical folk. What are they saying? I'm seeing them zoom in on the key technical problem: at no point has LN fixed the key technical issue, how to route. Every transaction invalidates the routing path, because it changes the amount of liquidity available in the channels. Rick Falkvinge nails this point. Key bit from 10:00 on, though the rest is well worth your time (and I say that as someone who hates watching videos on YouTube): https://youtu.be/Ug8NH67_EfE?t=600 https://youtu.be/Ug8NH67_EfE?t=600 LN proponents explicitly compare it to BGP - but BGP is a completely trust-based protocol, where a lot of telecoms engineers have an agreement that they'll keep the network going no matter what, and bad actors are dealt with by hand. Trust-based and fixing problems by hand is the diametric opposite of the cryptocurrency model.

45h34jh53k4j 9y ago

No, you dont need funds to receive them. An unfunded node can receive and transact over a peer funded channel. There are services like strike that offer custodial lightning channels, and will aggregate and send onchain tx's: https://medium.com/@ACINQ/introducing-strike-a-stripe-like-api-for-lightning-c84762f4f634 https://medium.com/@ACINQ/introducing-strike-a-stripe-like-a... While the network has such low fees as today, there is no need to increase the blocksize. Increasing the blocksize (or time) effects scalability in epic ways -- ie: Ethereum requires at least 500GB SSD to run -- so the minimum cost of entry is at least $300. Meanwhile 10m/1MB blocks still runs on $20 RPis. I am not against mods to consensus to increase the block size, but there are more critical problems like solving tx malleability and new tx format (segwit) that provide more value today. Dont be an ignorant big blocker. Look at the smartest people in this space. The real technical folk. What are they saying?

davidgerard 9y ago
> Dont be an ignorant big blocker. Look at the smartest people in this space. The real technical folk. What are they saying? I'm seeing them zoom in on the key technical problem: at no point has LN fixed the key technical issue, how to route. Every transaction invalidates the routing path, because it changes the amount of liquidity available in the channels. Rick Falkvinge nails this point. Key bit from 10:00 on, though the rest is well worth your time (and I say that as someone who hates watching videos on YouTube): https://youtu.be/Ug8NH67_EfE?t=600 https://youtu.be/Ug8NH67_EfE?t=600 LN proponents explicitly compare it to BGP - but BGP is a completely trust-based protocol, where a lot of telecoms engineers have an agreement that they'll keep the network going no matter what, and bad actors are dealt with by hand. Trust-based and fixing problems by hand is the diametric opposite of the cryptocurrency model.