3 ms·

I think it's okay if users could settle reasonably often, but unless the main chain's capacity is greatly increased, that won't be the case. If 7 billion people

I think it's okay if users could settle reasonably often, but unless the main chain's capacity is greatly increased, that won't be the case. If 7 billion people used Bitcoin today, the current ~4 TPS capacity would only be enough for each person to perform one transaction every 55 years. If we adopted a 100mb block size, which is probably pushing the limit of what a normal server machine can handle, that would be just enough for each person to perform two on-chain transactions per year. Most people would want to settle at least once per month, to collect their paychecks and move the money into a payment channel with a well-connected middleman. That doesn't seem feasible without sharding or some other solution to drastically increase the main chain's capacity.

darawk 9y ago
I think the idea is that due to the existence of LN, you would almost never need to settle on-chain. But because you theoretically could, you maintain all the benefits of genuine financial sovereignty without ever having to actually exercise it.
- dlubarov 9y ago
  I haven't read most of the paper (59 pages!) so I might be missing something, but let's say I'm receiving Lightning payments from my employer and sending Lightning payments to my landlord. When my channel to my landlord runs out of funds, won't I need a couple on-chain transactions to withdraw funds from my employer channel and add them to my landlord channel? If I could somehow transfer my employer's IOUs to my landlord off-chain, I figure that break the security model because my landlord wouldn't know if I had double spent the IOUs. Let me know if I'm missing something though.
  - dpc_pw 9y ago
    Just watch some YT videos. It has been explained many times in many videos.
  - darawk 9y ago
    You are correct, if you think about it as a payment channel between you and your landlord, and a separate channel between you and your employer, I believe. However, the way it's more likely to end up shaking out is as an interlocking network of trusted intermediaries, much like Visa/Mastercard are now. Your employer will pay you, and then you will pay your landlord. But the only channel you'll have open is one to this 'visa' like entity that sits in the middle, and so will your employer and your landlord. So that trusted intermediary will ensure you don't double-spend to other parties in their channel, but who are the only parties you could double spend to. At least, that is my understanding of how the model works - I haven't read all 59 pages either, though.

darawk 9y ago

I think the idea is that due to the existence of LN, you would almost never need to settle on-chain. But because you theoretically could, you maintain all the benefits of genuine financial sovereignty without ever having to actually exercise it.

dlubarov 9y ago
I haven't read most of the paper (59 pages!) so I might be missing something, but let's say I'm receiving Lightning payments from my employer and sending Lightning payments to my landlord. When my channel to my landlord runs out of funds, won't I need a couple on-chain transactions to withdraw funds from my employer channel and add them to my landlord channel? If I could somehow transfer my employer's IOUs to my landlord off-chain, I figure that break the security model because my landlord wouldn't know if I had double spent the IOUs. Let me know if I'm missing something though.
- dpc_pw 9y ago
  Just watch some YT videos. It has been explained many times in many videos.
- darawk 9y ago
  You are correct, if you think about it as a payment channel between you and your landlord, and a separate channel between you and your employer, I believe. However, the way it's more likely to end up shaking out is as an interlocking network of trusted intermediaries, much like Visa/Mastercard are now. Your employer will pay you, and then you will pay your landlord. But the only channel you'll have open is one to this 'visa' like entity that sits in the middle, and so will your employer and your landlord. So that trusted intermediary will ensure you don't double-spend to other parties in their channel, but who are the only parties you could double spend to. At least, that is my understanding of how the model works - I haven't read all 59 pages either, though.