3 ms·

Lightning offers fast, cheap, anonymous transactions with Visa-like transaction throughput as well as instant final settlement. Why do people assume there have

by lowkey 5y ago

Lightning offers fast, cheap, anonymous transactions with Visa-like transaction throughput as well as instant final settlement. Why do people assume there have been no new technical developments since Satoshi’s invention in 2009? Lightning Payments would allow you to buy a coffee at Starbucks instantly while avoiding the 2-3% in payment processor fees.

mikegreenberg 5y ago
I disagree and believe that Lightning is not yet safe or easy for users. Here are my primary talking points if you'd like to discuss further: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30210023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30210023
- lowkey 5y ago
  I read through your talking points on Lightning and for the record I agree for the most part with all of them. Lightning is a newish technology and like most of the cryptocurrency space, the UX is not great. However, I didn’t see any talking points in your list that could not be addressed by building solutions to improve UX. In fact, I am working on solutions for many of these issues and I encourage others to do the same. It’s similar to how Linux on the desktop isn’t as easy as simply buying a Mac. There is real value in alternative solutions such as Bitcoin and Linux even though it may be harder to use these technologies today.
  - mikegreenberg 5y ago
    > However, I didn’t see any talking points in your list that could not be addressed by building solutions to improve UX. These things are problem with the protocol specification. I'm curious to know how you can solve things like without reducing the value proposition of Bitcoin being trustless and permissionless and Lightning being a fast settlement layer for daily transactions. - Removing the pain of settling twice on-chain with an unpredictable cost. The best I can think of is to create some fund which amortizes the channel handling cost across all users. Which means you're sacrificing permissionlessness to whatever is doing the amortization of fees.) - Fixing routing and the convergence of the network toward a hub-and-spoke shape. (This is bad because Bitcoin is suppose to be trustless/permissionless...if you need to trust a hub node, then you're getting all of the negatives and none of the positives.) - Fixing the dust attack that HTLCs enables. (Context for others: HTLCs are a critical piece of the Lightning network protocol and is what enables channels to be created/destroyed at all.) I understand the point you're trying to make but I disagree with your analogy. Linux is not being advertised to the masses as safe and easy to use like LN is.
josefrichter 5y ago
> Why do people assume there have been no new technical developments since Satoshi’s invention in 2009? Not sure where this came from, but certainly from me. Lightning is a joke, we have ~20 better solutions already. Still they have some way to go to fulfill Sathoshi's vision.
- lowkey 5y ago
  Lightning is working for an entire nation in El Salvador. Why is Lightning a Joke? I commented below that the UX for Lightning needs work but I would consider that par for the course for an emerging technology. What are some of the ~20 better solutions and how do they compare in terms of programmatic inflation policy, security budget, decentralization etc? Or are you just trying to equate Lightning to Nano or Visa since they all have low fees and fast transactions?
  - josefrichter 5y ago
    It's not working for the whole nation in El Salvador. Those people there are dependent on remittances from their relatives in the US. Since the incoming remittances are controlled by de facto mafia, they were hoping that bitcoin might be a way to avoid fishy middlemen. However they are exposed to extreme volatility. If your income is so low that you need to rely on relatives abroad, then mere 10% price dip could be deadly for you, suddenly you cannot pay rent, etc. A safer solution for them might be stablecoin transfers on some other quick and cheap chain. It has its own set of downsides and risks, but they might be relatively low compared to huge fx risk of BTC.

by lowkey 5y ago

mikegreenberg 5y ago

I disagree and believe that Lightning is not yet safe or easy for users. Here are my primary talking points if you'd like to discuss further: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30210023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30210023

lowkey 5y ago
I read through your talking points on Lightning and for the record I agree for the most part with all of them. Lightning is a newish technology and like most of the cryptocurrency space, the UX is not great. However, I didn’t see any talking points in your list that could not be addressed by building solutions to improve UX. In fact, I am working on solutions for many of these issues and I encourage others to do the same. It’s similar to how Linux on the desktop isn’t as easy as simply buying a Mac. There is real value in alternative solutions such as Bitcoin and Linux even though it may be harder to use these technologies today.
- mikegreenberg 5y ago
  > However, I didn’t see any talking points in your list that could not be addressed by building solutions to improve UX. These things are problem with the protocol specification. I'm curious to know how you can solve things like without reducing the value proposition of Bitcoin being trustless and permissionless and Lightning being a fast settlement layer for daily transactions. - Removing the pain of settling twice on-chain with an unpredictable cost. The best I can think of is to create some fund which amortizes the channel handling cost across all users. Which means you're sacrificing permissionlessness to whatever is doing the amortization of fees.) - Fixing routing and the convergence of the network toward a hub-and-spoke shape. (This is bad because Bitcoin is suppose to be trustless/permissionless...if you need to trust a hub node, then you're getting all of the negatives and none of the positives.) - Fixing the dust attack that HTLCs enables. (Context for others: HTLCs are a critical piece of the Lightning network protocol and is what enables channels to be created/destroyed at all.) I understand the point you're trying to make but I disagree with your analogy. Linux is not being advertised to the masses as safe and easy to use like LN is.

josefrichter 5y ago

> Why do people assume there have been no new technical developments since Satoshi’s invention in 2009? Not sure where this came from, but certainly from me. Lightning is a joke, we have ~20 better solutions already. Still they have some way to go to fulfill Sathoshi's vision.

lowkey 5y ago
Lightning is working for an entire nation in El Salvador. Why is Lightning a Joke? I commented below that the UX for Lightning needs work but I would consider that par for the course for an emerging technology. What are some of the ~20 better solutions and how do they compare in terms of programmatic inflation policy, security budget, decentralization etc? Or are you just trying to equate Lightning to Nano or Visa since they all have low fees and fast transactions?
- josefrichter 5y ago
  It's not working for the whole nation in El Salvador. Those people there are dependent on remittances from their relatives in the US. Since the incoming remittances are controlled by de facto mafia, they were hoping that bitcoin might be a way to avoid fishy middlemen. However they are exposed to extreme volatility. If your income is so low that you need to rely on relatives abroad, then mere 10% price dip could be deadly for you, suddenly you cannot pay rent, etc. A safer solution for them might be stablecoin transfers on some other quick and cheap chain. It has its own set of downsides and risks, but they might be relatively low compared to huge fx risk of BTC.