4 ms·

> I have been using Lightning Network and it seems to work all right That won't last. As stated in the Lightning Network whitepaper [0], it will need much bigg

• npoc 2y ago
  Nah, channel factories solve that problem. https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/67158/what-are-channel-factories-and-how-do-they-work https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/67158/what-are-c...
  • hggh 2y ago
    A new layer between the layer 1 and layer 2, sure...
    • npoc 2y ago
      Why don't you think it's possible?
      • hggh 2y ago
        It is possible, but absurd. Why more layers if layer 1 works fine just increasing the maximum block size? Bitcoin Cash did it and works flawlessly. Just try it.
        • npoc 2y ago
          It's called the blockchain trilemma. Bitcoin cash pays the price through centralisation. It can still only manage 100 transactions/second so certainly isn't flawless. Far better to make the base layer slow but very robust, and then add layers to scale.
          • hggh 2y ago
            > Bitcoin cash pays the price through centralisation What centralization? If you are referring to the node implementations, it has several [0]: Bitcoin Node, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Verde,... Bitcoin BTC has basically one: Bitcoin Core [1]. If you mean mining, it's the same as BTC, same mining algorithm, same miners. > It can still only manage 100 transactions/second True for now, but it's way more than it needs right now now [2]. But don't worry, this month upgrades to ABLA [3], and will be able to scale to as many tx/s as needed. [0] https://bitcoincash.org/#nodes https://bitcoincash.org/#nodes [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin [2] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash [3] https://gitlab.com/0353F40E/ebaa/-/blob/main/README.md https://gitlab.com/0353F40E/ebaa/-/blob/main/README.md
            • npoc 2y ago
              The increased block size increases the amount of storage required to run a full node (and also the bandwidth required to sync nodes). Even at just 100 tx/sec, you need 14x the storage of a bitcoin node (so around 10TB vs 700GB for bitcoin). That puts it out of reach for many people to run and so making it more centralised. To compete with a payment rails like Visa and Mastercard, you'd need to increase that to 10000+ tx/sec, making running a node complete unfeasible for most people to run. There's simply no such thing as a decentralised blockchain network with unlimited block-size. At some point if you want to remain decentralised, you have to create layer 2+ networks that can handle the smaller, high-bandwidth transactions, and so you may as well commit to that model now and focus on making the base layer as robust as possible. Ultimately for a money to attract the most value, it needs to optimise for the very largest transactions, and offer the most robustness (i.e. most decentralisation). This is precisely what bitcoin has done.
              • hggh 2y ago
                If you mean a full non-mining nodes (which only a few people really need, merchants, exchanges, ...), read points 7 and 8 of the whitepaper. For full mining nodes, you need expensive specialized hardware anyway. Non-mining nodes are just observers that do nothing good to the network. Is like going to war with popcorn as a weapon. Mining nodes are the only ones than can include transactions to a block. https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf