8 ms·

Like 99% of crypto projects, this would work just as well under a centralized db / FIAT

by shmatt 4y ago

simonmales 4y ago
Not exactly. Lightning means they receiver gets 100% what I send. This is particularly interesting for micropayments. I can tip someone 1 cent, or less with no middle man.
- shmatt 4y ago
  the fact you are using the lightning network means there is some thing writing down a transaction from wallet a to wallet b smart contracts are a middle man, and not a great one from all the recent exploits executed on them
  - simonmales 4y ago
    If I were to send you satoshis via lightning. It wouldn't be recorded in the Bitcoin blockchain.
  - noch 4y ago
    > the fact you are using the lightning network means there is some thing writing down a transaction from wallet a to wallet b Correction: Lightning is a peer-to-peer payment network https://docs.lightning.engineering/the-lightning-network/payment-channels https://docs.lightning.engineering/the-lightning-network/pay...
- lxgr 4y ago
  What's the incentive for anybody to open a lightning channel, providing connetivity etc. without compensation? And even if all of this was indeed done for free (sustainably, not as a loss leader): Dispute resolution and fraud costs money. Free leaves zero margin for either, and I wouldn't use a payment service not providing both.
  - kevinak 4y ago
    The parent here is exaggerating. It's not free, just very very very cheap. Nodes with channels can set fees and get paid when they a transaction is routed through them. There is work being done on non-custodial escrow services for LN. Here's one: https://lightningescrow.io https://lightningescrow.io
    - lxgr 4y ago
      What prevents a node connecting many consumer wallets from raising rates for "out-of-network" wallets, especially smaller ones, or independent nodes? Think of any network: Economic forces usually drive it towards centralization if not outright monopolization, especially if interfacing with end users (e.g. banks, electricity providers, ISPs, messengers...) unless there are (effective) laws in place prohibiting it. > There is work being done on non-custodial escrow services for LN. I'm very curious about efforts like that. Dispute resolution is extremely difficult to do in a way that is cost-effective, yet fair enough to not drive away either buyers or sellers.
      - woojoo666 4y ago
        Not sure what you mean by your question. Payers choose the channel they want to send the payment over. If somebody sets a large fee, the payers will simply choose a different channel.
        lxgr 4y ago
        By that logic, if customers would see how large interchange fees can be, they would choose different payment methods than the most expensive credit cards. The opposite is the case: Merchants almost always prefer not losing the purchase over a few bips saved on interchange and cardholders continue using their high-fee cards because issuers pay them kickbacks from that interchange in the form of rewards. The exact same thing could happen with a dominant Lightning wallet provider (supporting channels only to their own nodes in exchange for a better user experience, incentives etc.) and merchants accepting Lightning. Monopolization almost seems impossible to prevent at a technical level in networks due to the network effect (quadratic utility) and customers being relatively slow to change providers and easy to sway with one-time incentives. Credit cards have just had a few decades of a headstart over Lightning in that regard.
rewtraw 4y ago
I'm consistently surprised by HN's lack of vision in this area. The idea of a Network State / Internet-native economy is a cyberpunk dream, and crypto enables that. The constant doubt, rejection, and preference for SV-startup solutions is the opposite of what I would expect from a "Hacker Community" but I suppose HN is literally full of VCs (particularly FinTech) that don't want the competition from open crypto solutions. Meanwhile, devs in crypto are able to build without limits and are having an absolute blast larping as anime cats on Twitter while cranking on bleeding edge ZK tech and other exciting projects.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > I'm consistently surprised by HN's lack of vision in this area. The idea of a Network State / Internet-native economy is a cyberpunk dream, and crypto enables that. How so? Isn't the "cyberpunk dream" a dystopia?
  - teekert 4y ago
    Not for me. This issue in particular seems to polarize our community.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > Not for me. This issue in particular seems to polarize our community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk: > Cyberpunk is a subgenre of science fiction in a dystopian futuristic setting that tends to focus on a "combination of lowlife and high tech",[1] featuring futuristic technological and scientific achievements, such as artificial intelligence and cybernetics, juxtaposed with societal collapse or decay. It's the kind of world that's better to look at than actually inhabit.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      "our community" is one that wouldn't know how to get to the bowling lanes if Uber went down. Hell, half of us probably wouldn't know how to get work done if Slack or Github has an afternoon outage. There's not a person on this site that would last in a cyberpunk distopia, putting the average HN user in the middle of an unmoderated forum would be like the end of Logan's Run. We'd all be standing around, stupefied by a world we don't understand. I'm being facetious, but it's true. The average person is a weenie, and we rely on a great deal of well-maintained, centralized infrastructure to keep us going. There's a reason why people here fight to keep Fortnite off their iPhone and tries to bite the hand of anyone peddling crypto: deep down, we're all scared! We need corporations to coddle and exploit us, just like they need our money. HN, and the world at large, wouldn't want crypto even if it was "the right thing" to do.
rglullis 4y ago
Do you know how much from it goes to middlemen? What if you wanted to support 200 open source developers by sending $0.25 every month?

Like 99% of crypto projects, this would work just as well under a centralized db / FIAT

by shmatt 4y ago

Like 99% of crypto projects, this would work just as well under a centralized db / FIAT

Not exactly. Lightning means they receiver gets 100% what I send. This is particularly interesting for micropayments. I can tip someone 1 cent, or less with no middle man.

shmatt 4y ago
the fact you are using the lightning network means there is some thing writing down a transaction from wallet a to wallet b smart contracts are a middle man, and not a great one from all the recent exploits executed on them
- simonmales 4y ago
  If I were to send you satoshis via lightning. It wouldn't be recorded in the Bitcoin blockchain.
- noch 4y ago
  > the fact you are using the lightning network means there is some thing writing down a transaction from wallet a to wallet b Correction: Lightning is a peer-to-peer payment network https://docs.lightning.engineering/the-lightning-network/payment-channels https://docs.lightning.engineering/the-lightning-network/pay...
lxgr 4y ago
What's the incentive for anybody to open a lightning channel, providing connetivity etc. without compensation? And even if all of this was indeed done for free (sustainably, not as a loss leader): Dispute resolution and fraud costs money. Free leaves zero margin for either, and I wouldn't use a payment service not providing both.
- kevinak 4y ago
  The parent here is exaggerating. It's not free, just very very very cheap. Nodes with channels can set fees and get paid when they a transaction is routed through them. There is work being done on non-custodial escrow services for LN. Here's one: https://lightningescrow.io https://lightningescrow.io
  - lxgr 4y ago
    What prevents a node connecting many consumer wallets from raising rates for "out-of-network" wallets, especially smaller ones, or independent nodes? Think of any network: Economic forces usually drive it towards centralization if not outright monopolization, especially if interfacing with end users (e.g. banks, electricity providers, ISPs, messengers...) unless there are (effective) laws in place prohibiting it. > There is work being done on non-custodial escrow services for LN. I'm very curious about efforts like that. Dispute resolution is extremely difficult to do in a way that is cost-effective, yet fair enough to not drive away either buyers or sellers.
    - woojoo666 4y ago
      Not sure what you mean by your question. Payers choose the channel they want to send the payment over. If somebody sets a large fee, the payers will simply choose a different channel.
      - lxgr 4y ago
        By that logic, if customers would see how large interchange fees can be, they would choose different payment methods than the most expensive credit cards. The opposite is the case: Merchants almost always prefer not losing the purchase over a few bips saved on interchange and cardholders continue using their high-fee cards because issuers pay them kickbacks from that interchange in the form of rewards. The exact same thing could happen with a dominant Lightning wallet provider (supporting channels only to their own nodes in exchange for a better user experience, incentives etc.) and merchants accepting Lightning. Monopolization almost seems impossible to prevent at a technical level in networks due to the network effect (quadratic utility) and customers being relatively slow to change providers and easy to sway with one-time incentives. Credit cards have just had a few decades of a headstart over Lightning in that regard.

rewtraw 4y ago

I'm consistently surprised by HN's lack of vision in this area. The idea of a Network State / Internet-native economy is a cyberpunk dream, and crypto enables that. The constant doubt, rejection, and preference for SV-startup solutions is the opposite of what I would expect from a "Hacker Community" but I suppose HN is literally full of VCs (particularly FinTech) that don't want the competition from open crypto solutions. Meanwhile, devs in crypto are able to build without limits and are having an absolute blast larping as anime cats on Twitter while cranking on bleeding edge ZK tech and other exciting projects.

tablespoon 4y ago
> I'm consistently surprised by HN's lack of vision in this area. The idea of a Network State / Internet-native economy is a cyberpunk dream, and crypto enables that. How so? Isn't the "cyberpunk dream" a dystopia?
- teekert 4y ago
  Not for me. This issue in particular seems to polarize our community.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Not for me. This issue in particular seems to polarize our community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk: > Cyberpunk is a subgenre of science fiction in a dystopian futuristic setting that tends to focus on a "combination of lowlife and high tech",[1] featuring futuristic technological and scientific achievements, such as artificial intelligence and cybernetics, juxtaposed with societal collapse or decay. It's the kind of world that's better to look at than actually inhabit.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    "our community" is one that wouldn't know how to get to the bowling lanes if Uber went down. Hell, half of us probably wouldn't know how to get work done if Slack or Github has an afternoon outage. There's not a person on this site that would last in a cyberpunk distopia, putting the average HN user in the middle of an unmoderated forum would be like the end of Logan's Run. We'd all be standing around, stupefied by a world we don't understand. I'm being facetious, but it's true. The average person is a weenie, and we rely on a great deal of well-maintained, centralized infrastructure to keep us going. There's a reason why people here fight to keep Fortnite off their iPhone and tries to bite the hand of anyone peddling crypto: deep down, we're all scared! We need corporations to coddle and exploit us, just like they need our money. HN, and the world at large, wouldn't want crypto even if it was "the right thing" to do.

rglullis 4y ago

Do you know how much from it goes to middlemen? What if you wanted to support 200 open source developers by sending $0.25 every month?