Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Lightning Network Search and Analysis Engine

1ml.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: Show HN: Lightning Network Search and Analysis Engine

#91

Post by shanusmagnus »

xkarga00 wrote: post #84
imtringued wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are nothing without public exchanges.

Wait until most cryptos support atomic swaps.

Still useless from the PoV of this argument until you get to the point where you can buy stuff you need directly in crypto without conversion to fiat. We're a long way from that now, and the closest practical workaround (bitcoin to gift cards to stuff) goes away if the government gets hostile.

The government doesn't have to make it impossible for cypherpunks and superhackers to use bitcoin, it just has to scare normal people. That's easily done with a few laws and some gratuitous enforcement, e.g., throw a few thousand people in jail for tax evasion, watch how long it takes for these casual hodlers to liquidate. That's 90% of the battle won, and 90% will probably be enough.

Re: Show HN: Lightning Network Search and Analysis Engine

#92

Post by shanusmagnus »

dane-pgp wrote: post #86
hndamien wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. I think Monero has that mantle. Mining was supposed to be decentralised and the cash was supposed to be fungible.

Is Bitcoin Cash mining not decentralised? https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/thisweek Also I'm not sure what definition of fungible you are using that doesn't include Bitcoin Cash, but here's another spurious definition for you: A cryptocurrency isn't fungible if most wallets have balances that can't be spent because of fees. https://www.newsbtc.com/2017/11/17/bitpay-ceo-claims-current...

The usual definition of fungible is that one coin (more precisely, one spend output) is as good as another (e.g., the same amount coming from a different UTXO) and they are not distinguishable from each other due to their provenance.

Put more simply, if the coins can be 'tainted' because they were transferred to you from a ransomware hoard then they're not fungible because a merchant could say: "I'm not taking those coins, I don't want to be associated with ransomware. You have to pay me with other coins."

Neither BTC nor BCH has this kind of fungibility, though Monero does.

Re: Show HN: Lightning Network Search and Analysis Engine

#93

Post by AlexCoventry »

urza wrote: post #34
AlexCoventry wrote: post #11

What are the regulatory hurdles to operating a lightning node in the US? It makes you a money transmitter, right?

Here is something from Andreas Antonopoulos on this topic: https://youtu.be/c4TjfaLgzj4?t=14m35s I think the most important aspect is that Lightning Nodes are just sending bitcoin transactions, the whole system is trustless, the node relying your transaction to destination can't steal your money any more then bitcoin full node relying your transaction to miners can.

Thanks. That was very unsatisfying, though. He's right that there are usually thresholds where money-transmitter laws kick in, but having to track that and refrain once you hit the limit would be onerous and limiting.

Re: Show HN: Lightning Network Search and Analysis Engine

#94

Post by AlexCoventry »

keymone wrote: post #68
AlexCoventry wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Miners only register a transfer of value and validate it against their perspective of the current ledger. Transfer routed through a lightning channel involves explicit exchange of funds between intermediaries.

this is not entirely correct. in A -> B -> C payment at no point does B hold A's money with a promise to pay it forward to C.

B's balance with A and C fluctuate during the transfer, though, and that is enough to at least make it look like a money-transmitter relationship.

The onion routing is very unfortunate, because it means regulators are likely to treat the network as a blatant money-laundering tool.

Re: Show HN: Lightning Network Search and Analysis Engine

#95

Post by dane-pgp »

shanusmagnus wrote: post #92
dane-pgp wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Bitcoin Cash mining not decentralised? https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/thisweek Also I'm not sure what definition of fungible you are using that doesn't include Bitcoin Cash, but here's another spurious definition for you: A cryptocurrency isn't fungible if most wallets have balances that can't be spent because of fees. https://www.newsbtc.com/2017/11/17/bitpay-ceo-claims-current...

The usual definition of fungible is that one coin (more precisely, one spend output) is as good as another (e.g., the same amount coming from a different UTXO) and they are not distinguishable from each other due to their provenance. Put more simply, if the coins can be 'tainted' because they were transferred to you from a ransomware hoard then they're not fungible because a merchant could say: "I'm not taking those…

I could see (some) merchants applying a blacklist to wallets that are known to be "evil" (as decided by some third party, somehow), but it's hard to imagine a non-negligible proportion of the bitcoin marketplace ever blacklisting all coins which have at any time in history been held by a ransomeware writer. The possibility of denying business to innocent customers is too great, and the benefits too small.

If some bizarre counter-productive legislation does come in requiring such a system for bitcoin, then yes, Monero might suddenly become more fungible in practice.

Re: Show HN: Lightning Network Search and Analysis Engine

#96

Post by hndamien »

dane-pgp wrote: post #95
shanusmagnus wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usual definition of fungible is that one coin (more precisely, one spend output) is as good as another (e.g., the same amount coming from a different UTXO) and they are not distinguishable from each other due to their provenance. Put more simply, if the coins can be 'tainted' because they were transferred to you from a ransomware hoard then they're not fungible because a merchant could say: "I'm not taking those…

I could see (some) merchants applying a blacklist to wallets that are known to be "evil" (as decided by some third party, somehow), but it's hard to imagine a non-negligible proportion of the bitcoin marketplace ever blacklisting all coins which have at any time in history been held by a ransomeware writer. The possibility of denying business to innocent customers is too great, and the benefits too small. If some biz…

There is no "more fungible". It is either fungible or it isn't. Provenance can either be determined, or it can't. Sure there may be a degree of difficulty to determine provenance for some things, but if you cannot determine provenance at all, there is no degree.

Re: Show HN: Lightning Network Search and Analysis Engine

#97

Post by xkarga00 »

shanusmagnus wrote: post #91
xkarga00 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until most cryptos support atomic swaps.

Still useless from the PoV of this argument until you get to the point where you can buy stuff you need directly in crypto without conversion to fiat. We're a long way from that now, and the closest practical workaround (bitcoin to gift cards to stuff) goes away if the government gets hostile. The government doesn't have to make it impossible for cypherpunks and superhackers to use bitcoin, it just has to scare norma…

Yeah, sorry, I replied to the parent while thinking forward. I agree that in order for cryptos to succeed, merchants have to use them first. It is definitely not simple and we are far from it because it involves rendering the current system obsolete and a mental shift in how we think about money and governance. Eventually I expect governments to be affected, too.

Re: Show HN: Lightning Network Search and Analysis Engine

#98

Post by keymone »

dane-pgp wrote: post #90
keymone wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

by "we managed" you mean the network of centralized gateways? because that's how internet works, just in case you didn't know. we grew past the global scale fully connected topologies somewhere in late 80s if not earlier (i was in ussr kindergarden at that time, so please somebody correct me). > Bitcoin Cash seems to be doing just fine with its 8 megabyte blocks is it maybe because nobody is using it? :) blocks are 1…

Having a two-tier system (if that's how you want to picture the internet) is still a valid way of scaling, as Satoshi said: "At that stage, most users should start running client-only software and only the specialist server farms keep running full network nodes, kind of like how the usenet network has consolidated." You're right that Bitcoin Cash usually has fewer transactions than Bitcoin Core, though, which allevia…

> Having a two-tier system is still a valid way of scaling

you've basically described the motivation behind LN.

> Bitcoin Cash usually has fewer transactions than Bitcoin Core, though, which alleviates scaling pressure.

very nice spin ;)

> https://i.redd.it/wbpq99paw74z.png

correlation does not imply causation.

numbers are clear: 15 times more data, 10 times more transactions, 50 times more USD transferred. no altcoin is even close to that level of economic activity, even those with inflated tps numbers.

Re: Show HN: Lightning Network Search and Analysis Engine

#99

Post by monkeyfoop »

mpfundstein wrote: post #61
monkeyfoop wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LN is DOA. Routing does not work. And it will never work. Long live Bitcoin Cash

Yeah! Like Segwit, which now already runs 30% of all transactions (source: reddit ). Ver is like Ballmer who didn’t see the iPhone coming

SegWit will do nothing for long term scaling. Watch and see.

Re: Show HN: Lightning Network Search and Analysis Engine

#100

Post by dane-pgp »

hndamien wrote: post #96
dane-pgp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see (some) merchants applying a blacklist to wallets that are known to be "evil" (as decided by some third party, somehow), but it's hard to imagine a non-negligible proportion of the bitcoin marketplace ever blacklisting all coins which have at any time in history been held by a ransomeware writer. The possibility of denying business to innocent customers is too great, and the benefits too small. If some biz…

There is no "more fungible". It is either fungible or it isn't. Provenance can either be determined, or it can't. Sure there may be a degree of difficulty to determine provenance for some things, but if you cannot determine provenance at all, there is no degree.

"Fungible: being something (such as money or a commodity) of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in paying a debt or settling an account"

That definition doesn't mention provenance, even if I concede that something can't be "more (easily) determined" or "less (easily) determined".

My point is that if 99% of debts can, in practice, be paid (or transactions made) without either party paying any attention to the provenance of the coins, then the coins are fungible.

If there were reports of a significant number of a people being unable to transact because their bitcoins were blacklisted, then I would believe that bitcoin is significantly less fungible.

Whether that lack of fungibility is more significant than Monero's differing level of merchant adoption (for which I also don't have statistics) is then another question that a user has to weigh up.

Post reply on HN