3 ms·

> But how am I supposed to convince a retailer to accept my off network payment? Because you're both connected to a common lightning node, at least indirectly.

> But how am I supposed to convince a retailer to accept my off network payment? Because you're both connected to a common lightning node, at least indirectly. There are several public lightning nodes that accept connections and they are joined together. Connect to one and you have access to their network. > Similarly, if I want some random person to send me money, how do I convince them to run a lightning node and to let me connect to it? Same as above. The lightning network is, of course, only going to work with other nodes who are also connected, but there is an incentive to join, since when you do, you can transact with all of its peers.

mikekchar 7y ago
It's been quite a long time since I read up on how lightning works, so maybe I'm misunderstanding something. At least in the version of the protocol I looked at the node that connects to the Bitcoin network has to promise to pay. It's literally a payment processor because they need the capital to guarantee the payment. Is this not the case any more? If it is, then I'm still in the same boat where the Bitcoin network facing node can decide not to service me.
- topmonk 7y ago
  > If it is, then I'm still in the same boat where the Bitcoin network facing node can decide not to service me. Jesus, this is precisely what the lightning network is for! Please, do a little research before dismissing it wholesale. The node you are connected to cannot refuse to pay, because you have a signed, but unpublished transaction of what he owes you (if he owes you). If he suddenly stops contact and says fuck you, you can just publish that transaction. Seriously, this has always been the idea from the get go, so don't go blaming that you haven't read the latest update on how lightning works. If you don't understand something, don't go around spouting that it must not work.
  - mikekchar 7y ago
    No offense, but could you please calm down? I have actually done some research -- to the point of knowing how to implement lightning. However, it is a long time ago and things may have changed. I'm asking you for more information because you seem to know more than me. I'm not trying to shout you down. I'm trying to understand what I'm missing. It's totally fair if you don't feel you have the time or patience to explain it to me, but for both your sake and mine, it's probably best if you just say that and I won't bother you any more.
    - topmonk 7y ago
      > No offense, but could you please calm down? First you write an extremely detailed hypothetical example that is based off entirely incorrect assumptions and then you go on with another assertion in your next post that shows you have no understanding of what the system does. It would be one thing if we are having a private conversation, but you are posting your uneducated FUD on a public forum. If I don't respond to dispel it, then other people can easily be led to believe what you are saying. Please take a little responsibility. You doing this is causing a lot of harm, and yes, you should be called a blockhead when you're acting like a blockhead. > I have actually done some research -- to the point of knowing how to implement lightning. You know how implement lightning, and yet you don't understand the basics of how it works? I can't see how that is possible, unless you are trying to say you ran some code or have interfaced with a library, which all I can say is, good for you, I guess. Maybe read the white paper next time. > However, it is a long time ago and things may have changed. Again with this bs. No, things were never designed in the way you describe. > I'm asking you for more information because you seem to know more than me. But you're not doing that. You are asserting conclusions without doing any basic research into what you are talking about. > I'm trying to understand what I'm missing. It's totally fair if you don't feel you have the time or patience to explain it to me, but for both your sake and mine, it's probably best if you just say that and I won't bother you any more. If you were simply asking questions, I'd have no problem with it. But, the issue is that this affects more than you or me when you go about spouting FUD publicly about a good system that actually would work. You do harm to everybody, by preventing it from potentially being adopted.

mikekchar 7y ago

It's been quite a long time since I read up on how lightning works, so maybe I'm misunderstanding something. At least in the version of the protocol I looked at the node that connects to the Bitcoin network has to promise to pay. It's literally a payment processor because they need the capital to guarantee the payment. Is this not the case any more? If it is, then I'm still in the same boat where the Bitcoin network facing node can decide not to service me.

topmonk 7y ago
> If it is, then I'm still in the same boat where the Bitcoin network facing node can decide not to service me. Jesus, this is precisely what the lightning network is for! Please, do a little research before dismissing it wholesale. The node you are connected to cannot refuse to pay, because you have a signed, but unpublished transaction of what he owes you (if he owes you). If he suddenly stops contact and says fuck you, you can just publish that transaction. Seriously, this has always been the idea from the get go, so don't go blaming that you haven't read the latest update on how lightning works. If you don't understand something, don't go around spouting that it must not work.
- mikekchar 7y ago
  No offense, but could you please calm down? I have actually done some research -- to the point of knowing how to implement lightning. However, it is a long time ago and things may have changed. I'm asking you for more information because you seem to know more than me. I'm not trying to shout you down. I'm trying to understand what I'm missing. It's totally fair if you don't feel you have the time or patience to explain it to me, but for both your sake and mine, it's probably best if you just say that and I won't bother you any more.
  - topmonk 7y ago
    > No offense, but could you please calm down? First you write an extremely detailed hypothetical example that is based off entirely incorrect assumptions and then you go on with another assertion in your next post that shows you have no understanding of what the system does. It would be one thing if we are having a private conversation, but you are posting your uneducated FUD on a public forum. If I don't respond to dispel it, then other people can easily be led to believe what you are saying. Please take a little responsibility. You doing this is causing a lot of harm, and yes, you should be called a blockhead when you're acting like a blockhead. > I have actually done some research -- to the point of knowing how to implement lightning. You know how implement lightning, and yet you don't understand the basics of how it works? I can't see how that is possible, unless you are trying to say you ran some code or have interfaced with a library, which all I can say is, good for you, I guess. Maybe read the white paper next time. > However, it is a long time ago and things may have changed. Again with this bs. No, things were never designed in the way you describe. > I'm asking you for more information because you seem to know more than me. But you're not doing that. You are asserting conclusions without doing any basic research into what you are talking about. > I'm trying to understand what I'm missing. It's totally fair if you don't feel you have the time or patience to explain it to me, but for both your sake and mine, it's probably best if you just say that and I won't bother you any more. If you were simply asking questions, I'd have no problem with it. But, the issue is that this affects more than you or me when you go about spouting FUD publicly about a good system that actually would work. You do harm to everybody, by preventing it from potentially being adopted.