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

First Lightning mainnet release

blog.lightning.engineering

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 216 posts

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#111

Post by SnowProblem »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #107
gruez wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pruning was added almost 3 years ago https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-n...

My point is: why do people still store full copies of the chain? If there are no downsides to this, why didn't we purge that 150 GB of useless data from the network a long time ago? And if people still _do_ need the full chain, then obviously that solution isn't sufficient to eliminate the problem I outlined in my previous comments.

Because right now you can't distribute the UXTO set in a trustless way. Core developers blocked it two years ago for nonsensical reasons [1], one of the many reasons the community doesn't trust them. Work has picked up on this in BCH [2].

[1] https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/2016/03/10/#initial-bloc...

[2] https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/workgroups/blob/master/wg-...

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#112

Post by nosuchthing »

colordrops wrote: post #81
serg_chernata wrote: post #2

This is so incredibly exciting for bitcoin. I know this is only a beta and it's been in the works for a while, but many people didn't believe we'd see anything at all this soon.

You're kidding right? We were supposed to be seeing this over a year ago. They've been consistently behind on their promises.

LN Dev: "We're 6 months away." Dec 14th, 2015

https://mobile.twitter.com/starkness/status/6765995708984197...

Something seems off with what LN claims is a p2p network, as the claim is they've created something better than BGP yet there's going to be many many race conditions if the network is ever actually used at scale and the only solution to those race conditions will be broadcasting updates to inform other nodes the route is inaccessible.. which will raise the bandwidth demand for anyone running nodes needing those updates.

https://youtu.be/Ug8NH67_EfE?t=635

For LN to claim to be p2p seems rather disingenuous, as everything about it is going to favor wealthy centralized payment processor hubs. What's the point than? Why not use venmo / stripe / square where there's less risk of scam for both consumer and retailer? Running a LN node will require a hot wallet with keys in memory, so if a Spectre/Meltdown style attack hits your node your key and funds are at greater risk of being stolen.

LN also opens up the ease of money laundering, so will all LN nodes need to keep KYC/AML logs for future audits?

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#113

Post by tboyd47 »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #9

Serious question, why does HN seemt o be in favor of lightning over BCH’s approach of not neutering the block size? LN has so many drawbacks. Have to always be online, need to hold hot walkets, need liquidity provided at both ends (kyc/aml)...

I tend to think raising the block size to improve throughput is like adding another lane to a busy highway. It's an expensive road upgrade that won't relieve congestion, but just add more commuters by increasing the number of cars.

Along that analogy, LN is more like carpooling. More commuters, same number of cars, no changes required to the roads. It's a cheaper upgrade that achieves the same effect in a different way.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#114

Post by WJW »

polyomino wrote: post #66
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an excellent high level description. Lightning network allows for an arbitrary high number of tx, but can only tx on value that has specifically been locked to do so. Essentially you end up creating a bidirectional link for each on-chain tx, the weight of each link is the amount of value that can flow in that direction. Joining a bunch of these links together potentially allows for just locking up funds with…

There is no added risk of double spend in lightning. The risk in lightning is that your counterparty can close the channel on an old state that benefits them. If you, or your watchtower (not yet implemented) is not there to punish fast enough, they can run away with your bitcoin.

What happens if they DDOS you (or your watchtower) at the right moment? Most peoples' bandwidth is shit enough that forcing them offline is fairly straightforward.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#115

Post by mbrock »

M4v3R wrote: post #7
serg_chernata wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap and near-instant transactions.

I was excited for Lightning until I've learned about Nano (formerly Raiblocks). It promised and actually delivered totally free AND near-instant transactions. Worth checking out if you didn't knew about it.

Every comment I see like this makes me less interested in looking into "Raiblocks" because it sounds exactly like vested interest shilling. Low content promotion of semi-obscure altcoins repeated in every single cryptocurrency discussion thread...

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#116

Post by XR0CSWV3h3kZWg »

polyomino wrote: post #66
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an excellent high level description. Lightning network allows for an arbitrary high number of tx, but can only tx on value that has specifically been locked to do so. Essentially you end up creating a bidirectional link for each on-chain tx, the weight of each link is the amount of value that can flow in that direction. Joining a bunch of these links together potentially allows for just locking up funds with…

There is no added risk of double spend in lightning. The risk in lightning is that your counterparty can close the channel on an old state that benefits them. If you, or your watchtower (not yet implemented) is not there to punish fast enough, they can run away with your bitcoin.

Sorry I guess I was using double spend to characterize any situation where you think a tx has taken place, but another party rolls back to a different or prior state.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#117

Post by darawk »

foepys wrote: post #76
darawk wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but there will be a liquid market in such nodes. Finding them will never be a problem.

> Yes, but there will be a liquid market in such nodes. How? You need to trust those nodes to provide not only a secure but also reliable service that will be online 24/7. A single outage, even if its only a minute long, can possibly lose you all your money in all channels. This means that centralization will happen almost immediately as high-availability is a very complex topic that is not achievable by amateurs. Es…

> A single outage, even if its only a minute long, can possibly lose you all your money in all channels.

The channels are open for multiple days. A minute outage wouldn't do the trick.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#118

Post by SuddsMcDuff »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #97
walls wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you probably don't want to use a scaling solution which only works if you assume Bitcoin will never achieve mainstream adoption But, that's exactly what happened with segwit. Why is that worth doing but increasing the block size is not?

If I recall correctly, Segwit was a prerequisite to Lightning. A block size increase is not.

You recall incorrectly. A malleability fix was a prerequisite to Lightning. SegWit is just one of many possible malleability fixes.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#119

Post by softawre »

colordrops wrote: post #89
lawlessone wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> BCH’s approach of not neutering the block size? Because increasing the block size is an inelegant approach that will only work briefly and then there will be more demands to make the blocks bigger again, eventually leading to centralization. Increasing the block size doesn't solve the problem, it just makes the problem bigger. other "coins" with larger faster block sizes are already running into storage issues.

> leading to centralization Repeating this propaganda over and over and over doesn't make it true. No centralization will occur with an increase in block size, as there will still be enough participants to prevent attacking the block chain. If what is meant by centralization is the reduction of people who can run nodes, then keeping the block size small also increases centralization by this definition, as there is a…

How does reducing the number of people who can transact involve centralization? Aren't we discussing centralization of the mining/network power?

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#120

Post by darawk »

Erlangolem wrote: post #79
darawk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t care how many times “ultimate sovereignty” gets thrown around like it means anything important outside of a few narrow circles. If you don't think it means something, then Bitcoin is not for you. But to basically all of the investors in gold, this is the property they care about.

Most people invest in precious metals becaus the rate of new precious metals entering the market is bound to be a trickle, demand is high, and it has value (and has for thousands of years). The fact that precious metals are fungible assets shouldn’t be lost on you either. A small minority of rubes do buy gold because they entertain apocalyptic fantasies in which they’d A. Survive and B. Be able to retain their money.…

> A small minority of rubes do buy gold because they entertain apocalyptic fantasies in which they’d A. Survive and B. Be able to retain their money.

You don't have to entertain the fantasy yourself to invest in it. You just have to trust that others do. That is what gold investment is, at a fundamental level.

Post reply on HN