3 ms·

>but because it requires the bitcoin network to make confirmation It doesn't require the Bitcoin network to make confirmation at all. Two users could do millio

>but because it requires the bitcoin network to make confirmation It doesn't require the Bitcoin network to make confirmation at all. Two users could do millions of txn/s between each other. The only limitation is their internet speed. The bitcoin network does not need to confirm or even know about anything other than the initial deposits. It could even happen entirely offline in a closed network, though that would be insecure. That is the whole idea behind lightning so I am not sure how you missed it. The real limitations of lightning/state channels relate to liquidity.

bduerst 7y ago
>... Lightning only scales with the number of transactions, not users. Is the rest of the sentence that you quoted out of context. Did you not see the example?
- Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
  >Lightning only scales with the number of transactions, not users. You seem to be poking at the need to open a lightning channel to get started using lightning and using the onboarding time to suggest that lightning cannot scale. First of all I think the way you made that argument is entirely disingenuous. Let's look at your first example: >* For 2 users to make 10,000,000 transactions between each other, it would take 10 minutes on the lightning network. It would take 10 minute for any two users to get started with lightning in the traditional way because that's the block time used in Bitcoin. For the record, lightning in not just for Bitcoin. It would take 2.5 minutes if using Litecoin for instance. What you are obscuring here is that once the channel is set up, the two users could transact with each other with no delay. That's what makes your example both incorrect and disingenuous. Your next example is basically the same thing, but at scale. You are incorporating on boarding times to get a big scary number. I encourage you to read about channel factories which should alleviate onboarding times.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    This is why I precisely used the example of paying monthly rent, because: 1) Paying rent is an example of a repeat payment between two users where you theoretically could have an open Lightning channel, but... 2) Landlords are still going to settle transactions immediately to avoid liability anyways The "just leave the channel open" is the disingenuous part being projected here. Your landlord isn't going to hold off on cashing your rent check because they want to turn around, endorse it, and use that slip of paper to pay for maintenance. No, the landlord cashes the check the same way that they would immediately settle a lightning transaction. Now imagine single, non-repeated payments between millions of untrusted parties. You're not going to have millions of "open channels". All those millions of users are going to settle the transactions immediately, which requires Bitcoin's bottleneck.
    - Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
      The landlord does not need to settle the transaction on the Bitcoin network to spend the money I have payed him. He could spend it anywhere within lightning. This is the crux of your misunderstanding. I really wish people would take more time to understand the things they criticize. There are real problems with lightning, this isn't one of them.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        >The landlord does not need to cash the check to spend the money I have payed him. He could spend it anywhere as a third party check. This is the crux of your misunderstanding. Ask your landlord why they won't spend third party checks and you have your answer as to why they won't spend unsettled IOUs on a lightning network. You're free to pull the, "Lightning too complicated for you to understand" but I think you're projecting again. Lightning doesn't scale with millions of users despite your attempts of apologizing for it.
        Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
        When the landlord spends the funds, he is not spending equivalent to a third-party IOU. Suppose you and your landlord share the A-B channel. When he wishes to spend the rent money he pays you back in the A-B channel in return for your paying the same amount in another channel to party C (who is likely a node). For the record, this process is trustless in the sense of the word that no trust is required. Nobody can wander off with anyone's funds. When party C (or party D, E, F, whoever receives it) actually gets the money he doesn't have to care about the state of things in in the original A-B channel. His money came from the other party is his channel and that's the only transaction he needs to watch. It's not like a third party IOU at all. And, of course because the Bitcoin network can enforce ownership, calling lightning an IOU does not really do it justice.
  - mr_woozy 7y ago
    I'd be interested in reading more about channel factories, got any useful links?
    - yownie 7y ago
      If anyone else is [curious](https://blockonomi.com/channel-factories-bitcoin-lightning-network/ https://blockonomi.com/channel-factories-bitcoin-lightning-n...)

bduerst 7y ago

>... Lightning only scales with the number of transactions, not users. Is the rest of the sentence that you quoted out of context. Did you not see the example?

Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
>Lightning only scales with the number of transactions, not users. You seem to be poking at the need to open a lightning channel to get started using lightning and using the onboarding time to suggest that lightning cannot scale. First of all I think the way you made that argument is entirely disingenuous. Let's look at your first example: >* For 2 users to make 10,000,000 transactions between each other, it would take 10 minutes on the lightning network. It would take 10 minute for any two users to get started with lightning in the traditional way because that's the block time used in Bitcoin. For the record, lightning in not just for Bitcoin. It would take 2.5 minutes if using Litecoin for instance. What you are obscuring here is that once the channel is set up, the two users could transact with each other with no delay. That's what makes your example both incorrect and disingenuous. Your next example is basically the same thing, but at scale. You are incorporating on boarding times to get a big scary number. I encourage you to read about channel factories which should alleviate onboarding times.
- bduerst 7y ago
  This is why I precisely used the example of paying monthly rent, because: 1) Paying rent is an example of a repeat payment between two users where you theoretically could have an open Lightning channel, but... 2) Landlords are still going to settle transactions immediately to avoid liability anyways The "just leave the channel open" is the disingenuous part being projected here. Your landlord isn't going to hold off on cashing your rent check because they want to turn around, endorse it, and use that slip of paper to pay for maintenance. No, the landlord cashes the check the same way that they would immediately settle a lightning transaction. Now imagine single, non-repeated payments between millions of untrusted parties. You're not going to have millions of "open channels". All those millions of users are going to settle the transactions immediately, which requires Bitcoin's bottleneck.
  - Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
    The landlord does not need to settle the transaction on the Bitcoin network to spend the money I have payed him. He could spend it anywhere within lightning. This is the crux of your misunderstanding. I really wish people would take more time to understand the things they criticize. There are real problems with lightning, this isn't one of them.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      >The landlord does not need to cash the check to spend the money I have payed him. He could spend it anywhere as a third party check. This is the crux of your misunderstanding. Ask your landlord why they won't spend third party checks and you have your answer as to why they won't spend unsettled IOUs on a lightning network. You're free to pull the, "Lightning too complicated for you to understand" but I think you're projecting again. Lightning doesn't scale with millions of users despite your attempts of apologizing for it.
      - Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
        When the landlord spends the funds, he is not spending equivalent to a third-party IOU. Suppose you and your landlord share the A-B channel. When he wishes to spend the rent money he pays you back in the A-B channel in return for your paying the same amount in another channel to party C (who is likely a node). For the record, this process is trustless in the sense of the word that no trust is required. Nobody can wander off with anyone's funds. When party C (or party D, E, F, whoever receives it) actually gets the money he doesn't have to care about the state of things in in the original A-B channel. His money came from the other party is his channel and that's the only transaction he needs to watch. It's not like a third party IOU at all. And, of course because the Bitcoin network can enforce ownership, calling lightning an IOU does not really do it justice.
- mr_woozy 7y ago
  I'd be interested in reading more about channel factories, got any useful links?
  - yownie 7y ago
    If anyone else is [curious](https://blockonomi.com/channel-factories-bitcoin-lightning-network/ https://blockonomi.com/channel-factories-bitcoin-lightning-n...)