4 ms·

In 10 years from now, everyone would have easy to use/intuitive lightning network wallets and all exchanges would have integrated it. Again, no need to keep tr

In 10 years from now, everyone would have easy to use/intuitive lightning network wallets and all exchanges would have integrated it. Again, no need to keep track of every coffee transaction permanently forever on the blockchain, it's just not efficient.

the_local_host 5y ago
Why bother settling on the blockchain at all? The second-layer transactions could just float, like the dollar separated from the gold standard.
- rawtxapp 5y ago
  For sure, you can keep channels open indefinitely. It won't be like dollars separated from gold though, it's still the same exact Bitcoin and the fund gets allocated at the opening of the channel.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- gruez 5y ago
  > The second-layer transactions could just float, like the dollar separated from the gold standard. You can't mint more bitcoins on the lightning network. There's a 1:1 relation between what's on the lightning network and what's on the blockchain. This is as opposed to fiat (zero relation, currency units can be generated at will), or gold standard in practice (the central bank only having enough gold for a fraction of the notes issued to be redeemed).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    Sure you can. Just mint some "lightnings" and move on. Nothing stops a large centralized processor from creating its own coin. L2 is also shit for actual distribution and censorship resistance. Imagine a future where BTC is 100x the current price and the people who got in early are rich as heck and nobody else can afford even a single transaction and must instead rely entirely on L2 services, never actually owning their own wealth.
    - gruez 5y ago
      > Sure you can. Just mint some "lightnings" and move on. Nothing stops a large centralized processor from creating its own coin. But that's literally not how the lightning network works? If some intermediary in the chain wants to accept IOUs in place of real bitcoins that's on them, but on both ends you're putting in and getting real bitcoins. By "real bitcoins" I mean they can be redeemed at any point in time by closing the channel, and there's no risk of a bank run (at least to the sender and receiver). If some intermediary decides to accept IOUs instead of real bitcoins, that's on them if it comes crashing down.
      - UncleMeat 5y ago
        It isn't how the lightning network works... until everybody without vast sums of wealth have literally no alternative except to transact through approved L2 providers. Then we are right back at numbers in centralized databases with no restriction whatsoever.
  - devname 5y ago
    If you never close channels, you can print infinite Bitcoins. No one knows the true state of a channel until it is settled.
    - gruez 5y ago
      uhh what? It's true that nobody knows what the state of the channel is, but the capacity is known. so they know it would conclude with either party A getting 0.1 BTC (for example), party B getting 0.1 BTC, or somewhere in between.
  - devname 5y ago
    A triangle ABC of lightning nodes opens a channel with 1 bitcoin between nodes. 3 bitcoins total. Each node can have a state with a total of 2 bitcoins. That's 6 bitcoins. It'd be a race to close channels, and only if the channel value is above the fee-floor, else the settled value is $0.
    - gruez 5y ago
      > A triangle ABC of lightning nodes opens a channel with 1 bitcoin between nodes. 3 bitcoins total. >Each node can have a state with a total of 2 bitcoins. That's 6 bitcoins. Well, no. If you want a channel between A and B with 1 BTC capacity in either direction, you'll need to deposit 2 BTC to fund the channel. Therefore there's 6 BTC total that's locked up. As for the rest of your comment, it's not really clear how it's "separated" from the on-chain value.
wmf 5y ago
In one year from now there will probably be coins that can do >1,000 TPS on layer 1 with negligible fees with intuitive wallets and all exchanges will have integrated them.
- noxer 5y ago
  These coins exists already since many years. See XRPL.org for the oldest "better bitcoin project". It has tested 1500 TPS and block time of a few seconds and on top of that a fully working second layer for high volume channels between 2 parties where the TPS is only limited by the speed of the hardware. It on average has more transaction per day than bitcoin ever had and it does that since years.
  - gruez 5y ago
    It's worth nothing those coins also took some liberties when it comes to establishing consensus. I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority".
    - pfundstein 5y ago
      Others however, just increased the block size to allow for more transactions per block and thereby lower fees. This is the intended purpose of the block size as set forth in the Bitcoin whitepaper.
      - noxer 5y ago
        Its not solving the problems its just makes it less severe for a while. There is always an interest for miners to maximize Tx fees. You could make the block size infinite and there would still be no reason for a miner to add all pending Tx. Why would they If they can force people to pay a fee. The solution is to get rid of the fee. That's the only way you can have a system that wants the maximum throughput for the minimum cost, because no one makes money from it. Hence systems like the XRPL dont have real Tx fees they only have a tiny pseudo fee that isn't going to anyone its simply burned instead and only acts as a spam protection.
CameronNemo 5y ago
That is what I was told 3 years ago.
noxer 5y ago
The lightning network relies on looking up BTC which the user has to pay for. Its impossible to be dirt cheap because someone earns money on every Tx. Its the opposite or what p2p cash is supposed to do - it should remove the middlemen. It does not remove it, it just decentralizes it. Its still someone there sucking out value for something that should essentially cost the same as sending an email.

the_local_host 5y ago

Why bother settling on the blockchain at all? The second-layer transactions could just float, like the dollar separated from the gold standard.

rawtxapp 5y ago
For sure, you can keep channels open indefinitely. It won't be like dollars separated from gold though, it's still the same exact Bitcoin and the fund gets allocated at the opening of the channel.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
gruez 5y ago
> The second-layer transactions could just float, like the dollar separated from the gold standard. You can't mint more bitcoins on the lightning network. There's a 1:1 relation between what's on the lightning network and what's on the blockchain. This is as opposed to fiat (zero relation, currency units can be generated at will), or gold standard in practice (the central bank only having enough gold for a fraction of the notes issued to be redeemed).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Sure you can. Just mint some "lightnings" and move on. Nothing stops a large centralized processor from creating its own coin. L2 is also shit for actual distribution and censorship resistance. Imagine a future where BTC is 100x the current price and the people who got in early are rich as heck and nobody else can afford even a single transaction and must instead rely entirely on L2 services, never actually owning their own wealth.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > Sure you can. Just mint some "lightnings" and move on. Nothing stops a large centralized processor from creating its own coin. But that's literally not how the lightning network works? If some intermediary in the chain wants to accept IOUs in place of real bitcoins that's on them, but on both ends you're putting in and getting real bitcoins. By "real bitcoins" I mean they can be redeemed at any point in time by closing the channel, and there's no risk of a bank run (at least to the sender and receiver). If some intermediary decides to accept IOUs instead of real bitcoins, that's on them if it comes crashing down.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      It isn't how the lightning network works... until everybody without vast sums of wealth have literally no alternative except to transact through approved L2 providers. Then we are right back at numbers in centralized databases with no restriction whatsoever.
- devname 5y ago
  If you never close channels, you can print infinite Bitcoins. No one knows the true state of a channel until it is settled.
  - gruez 5y ago
    uhh what? It's true that nobody knows what the state of the channel is, but the capacity is known. so they know it would conclude with either party A getting 0.1 BTC (for example), party B getting 0.1 BTC, or somewhere in between.
- devname 5y ago
  A triangle ABC of lightning nodes opens a channel with 1 bitcoin between nodes. 3 bitcoins total. Each node can have a state with a total of 2 bitcoins. That's 6 bitcoins. It'd be a race to close channels, and only if the channel value is above the fee-floor, else the settled value is $0.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > A triangle ABC of lightning nodes opens a channel with 1 bitcoin between nodes. 3 bitcoins total. >Each node can have a state with a total of 2 bitcoins. That's 6 bitcoins. Well, no. If you want a channel between A and B with 1 BTC capacity in either direction, you'll need to deposit 2 BTC to fund the channel. Therefore there's 6 BTC total that's locked up. As for the rest of your comment, it's not really clear how it's "separated" from the on-chain value.

wmf 5y ago

In one year from now there will probably be coins that can do >1,000 TPS on layer 1 with negligible fees with intuitive wallets and all exchanges will have integrated them.

noxer 5y ago
These coins exists already since many years. See XRPL.org for the oldest "better bitcoin project". It has tested 1500 TPS and block time of a few seconds and on top of that a fully working second layer for high volume channels between 2 parties where the TPS is only limited by the speed of the hardware. It on average has more transaction per day than bitcoin ever had and it does that since years.
- gruez 5y ago
  It's worth nothing those coins also took some liberties when it comes to establishing consensus. I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority".
  - pfundstein 5y ago
    Others however, just increased the block size to allow for more transactions per block and thereby lower fees. This is the intended purpose of the block size as set forth in the Bitcoin whitepaper.
    - noxer 5y ago
      Its not solving the problems its just makes it less severe for a while. There is always an interest for miners to maximize Tx fees. You could make the block size infinite and there would still be no reason for a miner to add all pending Tx. Why would they If they can force people to pay a fee. The solution is to get rid of the fee. That's the only way you can have a system that wants the maximum throughput for the minimum cost, because no one makes money from it. Hence systems like the XRPL dont have real Tx fees they only have a tiny pseudo fee that isn't going to anyone its simply burned instead and only acts as a spam protection.

CameronNemo 5y ago

That is what I was told 3 years ago.

noxer 5y ago

The lightning network relies on looking up BTC which the user has to pay for. Its impossible to be dirt cheap because someone earns money on every Tx. Its the opposite or what p2p cash is supposed to do - it should remove the middlemen. It does not remove it, it just decentralizes it. Its still someone there sucking out value for something that should essentially cost the same as sending an email.