4 ms·

I guess that's true based on your definition of "trustless". But I wouldn't consider a network where as a practical matter I have to rely on a small number of c

• __blockcipher__ 9y ago
  lol, with lightning you have to rely on a small number of centralized payment hubs who will likely be strongarmed by the government into keeping tabs on transactions through KYC/AML laws. It completely breaks the fundamental and original usecase of bitcoin: peer to peer electronic cash. Now it's "first world speculator to first world speculator through intermediary financial institution electronic store-of-value". Doesn't roll of the tongue quite so well, does it? IMO, XMR and BCH are the current best options for transactions. BTC is being destroyed by people who hadn't even heard of it 5 years ago.
  • hahainternet 9y ago
    > lol, with lightning you have to rely on a small number of centralized payment hubs There is no requirement for this. This is FUD.
• topranks 9y ago
  That is true. I guess my definition is as long as new players / players with different motives and agendas can join the fray, it is ok. So like I don't mind if we end up that you need at least $1million to become a miner, hell we are half way there anyway on both chains, I just mind if nobody can join, or if it goes to $1billion to be able to mine. LN seems like the ultimate in centralisation so as an alternative (while it might work,) it's a far inferior solution on that score.
• colordrops 9y ago
  That's just unfounded vague fear though. Do you have a concrete concern, or a specific technical scenario where having less mining nodes is a real problem?