5 ms·

Does anyone know how Lightening Network code actually routes nodes? The LN claim is basically decentralized BGP but much more complex and prone to race conditi

Does anyone know how Lightening Network code actually routes nodes? The LN claim is basically decentralized BGP but much more complex and prone to race condition errors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug8NH67_EfE&feature=youtu.be&t=10m24s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug8NH67_EfE&feature=youtu.be... The white paper doesn't even mention how LN routing works! 8.4 Payment Routing It is theoretically possible to build a route map implicitly from observing 2-of-2 multisigs on the blockchain to build a routing table. Note, however, this is not feasible with pay-to-script-hash transaction outputs, which can be resolved out-of-band from the bitcoin protocol via a third party routing service. Building a routing table will become necessary for large operators (e.g. BGP, Cjdns). Eventually, with optimizations, the network will look a lot like the correspondent banking network, or Tier-1 ISPs. It seems impossible to implement true decentralized routing, so it's likely they're using some sort of hack to prioritize "masternodes" as the backbone routers instead of actual peer to peer routing.

colordrops 9y ago
The whole thing is fishy. The lightning network is pushed by Blockstream, a company which has a large number of devs working on bitcoin core. They were responsible for all the propaganda and talking points against bumping the block size leading to the BCH fork, because they wanted the "correct" solution of their lightning network. The fact that it is so complex and ill defined is dangerous and an antithesis of decentralized system design and ethos, as it's not clear how trustless transactions are protected. How do we know that there isn't an easy backdoor that allows this network to be controlled for Blockstream's purposes?
- TimJRobinson 9y ago
  what? There are 3 different implementations of the Lightning network, they all implement the same protocol and are all open source. You seem to be either very misinformed or just trying to spread FUD.
- alexbosworth 9y ago
  This is confused or wrong. They don’t have a large number of devs working on Core. They did propose and code a solution which increased the block size. Saying things are fishy and that open source solutions widely reviewed over years by a broad set of people have some secret easy supposed backdoor, seems pretty wrong to me.
- tlrobinson 9y ago
  This is pure FUD. Satoshi himself proposed the first version of payment channels [1]. The Lightning Network paper has zero authors from Blockstream [2]. At least two other entirely independent companies are working on Lightning Network implementations [3][4]. It's well understood how trustless LN transactions work [5]. The spec [6] and code are open source, feel free to look for a "backdoor". 1. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Payment_channels#Nakamoto_high-frequency_transactions https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Payment_channels#Nakamoto_high-fr... 2. https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf 3. https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd 4. https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair 5. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hashed_Timelock_Contracts https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hashed_Timelock_Contracts 6. https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc
  - cup-of-tea 9y ago
    Whenever I see the term "FUD" nowadays I think "ah, someone who is invested in a cryptocurrency, this will definitely be an unbiased view".
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- glebedel 9y ago
  Only one of the implementation is coded by blockstream. It's a protocol, anybody else can create an implementation of it. Several other companies have created clients like LND (https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd) - probably more popular than clightning. > How do we know that there isn't an easy backdoor that allows this network to be controlled for Blockstream's purposes? The code of clightning is open source, so is the code of most known clients out there. > The fact that it is so complex and ill defined is dangerous and an antithesis of decentralized system design and ethos Your comment really seems like a baseless conspiracy theory full of ad hominems with no proof of what you mention: - it's not that crazy complex compared to all the intricacies / op codes and game theory of the Bitcoin base layer - it is more easily distributed than the base layer since it's easier to run a LN node by itself (albeit still relying on a bitcoin full node that may not be in your control if you wish it so). And like other said, Blockstream doesn't have many employees working on the base protocol (3 now afaik since Luke Dash JR & G.Maxwell do not work for Blockstream anymore). The few they have actually made very useful contributions to the code base since 2011/2012 which you can easily see through and most of their code is also used in all forks of Bitcoin aka BTG, BCH etc... > They were responsible for all the propaganda and talking points against bumping the block size leading to the BCH fork Any proof on that? Almost no bitcoin developers (albeit none apart of maybe 1 if you count Gavin which didnt contribute for years on the code base) left to work on this particular fork. There was no scientific consensus stipulating larger blocks (than 4mb) would be safe hence why the community at large did not support BCH (and why it has a minority of market share and mining share, TX usage etc).
woah 9y ago
> It seems impossible to implement true decentralized routing, so it's likely they're using some sort of hack to prioritize "masternodes" as the backbone routers instead of actual peer to peer routing. What do you mean "impossible to implement true decentralized routing"? Many examples of decentralized distance vector and link state algorithms exist. I'm not sure what they are doing but routing isn't some mystical thing that requires a master node. Here's a thing I did a while ago: https://github.com/jtremback/reactive-payment-routing https://github.com/jtremback/reactive-payment-routing
- nosuchthing 9y ago
  Very interesting and impressive project, thanks for sharing! It seems like p2p routing might work for a small network, but the complexity turns chaotic at scale very quickly. I guess time will tell how effective the LN implementation is.
  - keymone 9y ago
    just like with TSP - if you are willing to make concessions about accuracy, the problem becomes much more manageable.
- ExactoKnight 9y ago
  I was so impressed by this, I went snooping into your Github and saw you are now working on https://altheamesh.com/ https://altheamesh.com/ Which I have to say, is a very cool project and one I would love to help spread when your protocol can handle 3G or LTE-like speeds. Keep up the good work: you're really on to something with this project!
- monkeyfoop 9y ago
  LN is DOA. Routing does not work. And it will never work. Long live Bitcoin Cash
  - mpfundstein 9y ago
    Yeah! Like Segwit, which now already runs 30% of all transactions (source: reddit ). Ver is like Ballmer who didn’t see the iPhone coming
marknadal 9y ago
We're implementing a public-key based radix tree routing algorithm over here at gun, which is ranked #2 in blockchain ( https://github.com/topics/blockchain https://github.com/topics/blockchain ). Better, physical proximity (via Bluetooth or WiFi mesh networks) would provide immediate local routing. This would work with the above.

colordrops 9y ago

The whole thing is fishy. The lightning network is pushed by Blockstream, a company which has a large number of devs working on bitcoin core. They were responsible for all the propaganda and talking points against bumping the block size leading to the BCH fork, because they wanted the "correct" solution of their lightning network. The fact that it is so complex and ill defined is dangerous and an antithesis of decentralized system design and ethos, as it's not clear how trustless transactions are protected. How do we know that there isn't an easy backdoor that allows this network to be controlled for Blockstream's purposes?

TimJRobinson 9y ago
what? There are 3 different implementations of the Lightning network, they all implement the same protocol and are all open source. You seem to be either very misinformed or just trying to spread FUD.
alexbosworth 9y ago
This is confused or wrong. They don’t have a large number of devs working on Core. They did propose and code a solution which increased the block size. Saying things are fishy and that open source solutions widely reviewed over years by a broad set of people have some secret easy supposed backdoor, seems pretty wrong to me.
tlrobinson 9y ago
This is pure FUD. Satoshi himself proposed the first version of payment channels [1]. The Lightning Network paper has zero authors from Blockstream [2]. At least two other entirely independent companies are working on Lightning Network implementations [3][4]. It's well understood how trustless LN transactions work [5]. The spec [6] and code are open source, feel free to look for a "backdoor". 1. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Payment_channels#Nakamoto_high-frequency_transactions https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Payment_channels#Nakamoto_high-fr... 2. https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf 3. https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd 4. https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair 5. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hashed_Timelock_Contracts https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hashed_Timelock_Contracts 6. https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc
- cup-of-tea 9y ago
  Whenever I see the term "FUD" nowadays I think "ah, someone who is invested in a cryptocurrency, this will definitely be an unbiased view".
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
glebedel 9y ago
Only one of the implementation is coded by blockstream. It's a protocol, anybody else can create an implementation of it. Several other companies have created clients like LND (https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd) - probably more popular than clightning. > How do we know that there isn't an easy backdoor that allows this network to be controlled for Blockstream's purposes? The code of clightning is open source, so is the code of most known clients out there. > The fact that it is so complex and ill defined is dangerous and an antithesis of decentralized system design and ethos Your comment really seems like a baseless conspiracy theory full of ad hominems with no proof of what you mention: - it's not that crazy complex compared to all the intricacies / op codes and game theory of the Bitcoin base layer - it is more easily distributed than the base layer since it's easier to run a LN node by itself (albeit still relying on a bitcoin full node that may not be in your control if you wish it so). And like other said, Blockstream doesn't have many employees working on the base protocol (3 now afaik since Luke Dash JR & G.Maxwell do not work for Blockstream anymore). The few they have actually made very useful contributions to the code base since 2011/2012 which you can easily see through and most of their code is also used in all forks of Bitcoin aka BTG, BCH etc... > They were responsible for all the propaganda and talking points against bumping the block size leading to the BCH fork Any proof on that? Almost no bitcoin developers (albeit none apart of maybe 1 if you count Gavin which didnt contribute for years on the code base) left to work on this particular fork. There was no scientific consensus stipulating larger blocks (than 4mb) would be safe hence why the community at large did not support BCH (and why it has a minority of market share and mining share, TX usage etc).

woah 9y ago

> It seems impossible to implement true decentralized routing, so it's likely they're using some sort of hack to prioritize "masternodes" as the backbone routers instead of actual peer to peer routing. What do you mean "impossible to implement true decentralized routing"? Many examples of decentralized distance vector and link state algorithms exist. I'm not sure what they are doing but routing isn't some mystical thing that requires a master node. Here's a thing I did a while ago: https://github.com/jtremback/reactive-payment-routing https://github.com/jtremback/reactive-payment-routing

nosuchthing 9y ago
Very interesting and impressive project, thanks for sharing! It seems like p2p routing might work for a small network, but the complexity turns chaotic at scale very quickly. I guess time will tell how effective the LN implementation is.
- keymone 9y ago
  just like with TSP - if you are willing to make concessions about accuracy, the problem becomes much more manageable.
ExactoKnight 9y ago
I was so impressed by this, I went snooping into your Github and saw you are now working on https://altheamesh.com/ https://altheamesh.com/ Which I have to say, is a very cool project and one I would love to help spread when your protocol can handle 3G or LTE-like speeds. Keep up the good work: you're really on to something with this project!
monkeyfoop 9y ago
LN is DOA. Routing does not work. And it will never work. Long live Bitcoin Cash
- mpfundstein 9y ago
  Yeah! Like Segwit, which now already runs 30% of all transactions (source: reddit ). Ver is like Ballmer who didn’t see the iPhone coming

marknadal 9y ago

We're implementing a public-key based radix tree routing algorithm over here at gun, which is ranked #2 in blockchain ( https://github.com/topics/blockchain https://github.com/topics/blockchain ). Better, physical proximity (via Bluetooth or WiFi mesh networks) would provide immediate local routing. This would work with the above.