Live data from Hacker News

First Lightning mainnet release

blog.lightning.engineering

121–130 of 216 posts

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Wait, so that solution is essentially just trusting a few members of the community to decide what everyone's Bitcoin balance is? (Pick a few people to sign the UXTO and just trust their signatures?)

I'm kinda surprised you consider the dev's rejection of that idea to be "nonsensical". Seems perfectly sensible to me that they wouldn't want to grant that kind of authority to any particular set of individuals. In particular, that method is most certainly _not_ "a trustless way" of distributing the UXTO.

Hopefully whatever solution the BCH devs are working on isn't anything like that...

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#122
post #25
post #10

Did the Lightning Network solve the routing problem now or are they still emulating banks by requiring permanent online super nodes?

You know what? All the hops where your TCP/IP connection has gone to allow you to write that message, were provided by devices that had to be online in order to provide you the services. EOM

Yes, and in cases where there the stakes are substantial (or are perceived as substantial) those packets stop flowing or get throttled.

That doesn't seem like a great model for a payment system that aims to take over from the current processors.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It exists. It is called nano: no fees and instant transactions through the block lattice. https://nano.org/en/whitepaper I am surprised more folks on HN are not familiar with nano considering it is one of the few teams in crypto with endorsements from familiar faces: Zack Shapiro on the core team (ex-Product Hunt), Garry Tan (YC, angel investor in Coinbase), and Charlie Lee (former director of engineering @ Coinbase)…

Nano / Raiblocks is a scam in the sense it is created for free, and old users need new users to dump their nano at a profit to new bag holders. The initial distribution of XRB was performed through "manual mining" limited via a captcha. The distribution rate was 17 XRB (Raiblocks) per hour per ip4. This method was easy to automate, and easy to bypass with the plethora of VPNs and users who own hundreds of IP4/IP6 add…

To a close approximation, the first couple million bitcoins were created for free as well.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#124
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Were there any other serious proposals for fixing transaction malleability without Segwit?

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#125
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally I just don't like the approach of trying to solve the problem by throwing more disk space at it. It feels... inelegant, and probably unsustainable long term. Imagine for a minute a future where Bitcoin goes mainstream and needs to process ~2k transactions per second. (A reasonable estimate of the world's current credit card transaction rate, and 3 orders of magnitu…

Based on the exponential growth of disk size, I don't see this as a problem. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire chain, even at visa levels, could be stored on an average phone in 10 years.

Exponential growth eventually slows down.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#126
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lightning Network isn't really a satisfying solution in my opinion. It means that Bitcoin will just be a low-capacity settlement layer, and regular purchases will need to use PayPal-like middlemen to avoid hefty fees. There are a few on-chain scaling solutions. One is Vitalik's approach to sharding. Payments would be split into debits and credits, and a credit transaction would include a Merkle proof showing that a b…

> It means that Bitcoin will just be a low-capacity settlement layer, and regular purchases will need to use PayPal-like middlemen to avoid hefty fees. You're correct, of course. But what's wrong with that? You still retain ultimate sovereignty over your funds, which is the most important property, I think. What do you think is lost by Bitcoin being mostly a settlement layer with the option to transact on-chain for a…

I think it's okay if users could settle reasonably often, but unless the main chain's capacity is greatly increased, that won't be the case. If 7 billion people used Bitcoin today, the current ~4 TPS capacity would only be enough for each person to perform one transaction every 55 years.

If we adopted a 100mb block size, which is probably pushing the limit of what a normal server machine can handle, that would be just enough for each person to perform two on-chain transactions per year.

Most people would want to settle at least once per month, to collect their paychecks and move the money into a payment channel with a well-connected middleman. That doesn't seem feasible without sharding or some other solution to drastically increase the main chain's capacity.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#127
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what happens if a watchdog has an outage? I need multiple backup watchdogs then, and no watchdog will work for free. So I'm now paying multiple entities to securely transact money to other people that themselves also need watchdogs to watch their channels. This sounds not like it will result in low fees. Transaction fees, maybe, but overall fees including middlemen will be quite a bit higher.

>But what happens if a watchdog has an outage? Locktimes are currently on the order of days (roughly 3 days IIRC), which means you have days to react to a fraudulent transaction. A dedicated watchdog service being out for days at a time is pretty shitty uptime. Not to mention that this isn't the ONLY way you can watch out for this. Your laptop, phone, or any other internet connected device can also watch for these tr…

3 days? In contrast, your liability is capped at $500 if you inform your bank of debit card fraud within 60 days.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#128

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)...

> 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.

I don't buy the increased centralization argument. It usually comes down to the problem of orphan blocks / block propagation, a problem which has been made significantly better over time.

Even Satoshi was convinced that the block limit would be increased (it was only added for ddos protection reasons). He didn't even foresee the "block size debate" as an issue because it was never a debate. Of course the transaction throughput would be increased.

He literally said "Bitcoin never really hits a scaling cap".

Now, I'm not saying we should deify them or assume that they thought of every potential issue. But I think we should be very hesitant to deviate from their vision without an actual justification.

I believe that the community has been poisoned by people who don't even understand the original vision. As soon as Bitcoin Core / Blockstream got involved after Satoshi left the scene, everything went to shit.

Lightning is fundamentally an inferior user experience. You should be able to send money instantly without a third party. THAT was the point of bitcoin. Not to force people through a new type of financial institution (lightning hubs), solely to fix a manufactured fee problem.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nano / Raiblocks is a scam in the sense it is created for free, and old users need new users to dump their nano at a profit to new bag holders. The initial distribution of XRB was performed through "manual mining" limited via a captcha. The distribution rate was 17 XRB (Raiblocks) per hour per ip4. This method was easy to automate, and easy to bypass with the plethora of VPNs and users who own hundreds of IP4/IP6 add…

To a close approximation, the first couple million bitcoins were created for free as well.

It's funny to think of all the people getting into Bitcoin in 2018 thinking they're "getting in early" when the math behind Bitcoin granted those early users nearly the entire supply for pennies and anyone buying in recently or in the future will exchange real capital in exchange for these tokens generated for nearly 0 capital effort.

Measurably less CAPEX and OPEX for the first users to run the software "securing" the least important era of the network earned the greatest percentage of the supply?

Satoshi is even quoted as to the design of the ponzi like scheme:

  Satoshi Nakamoto
  Thu Jan 8 14:27:40 EST 2009
  I made the proof-of-work difficulty ridiculously easy to 
  start with, so for a little while in the beginning a 
  typical PC will be able to generate coins in just a few 
  hours. It'll get a lot harder when competition makes the 
  automatic adjustment drive up the difficulty.


  first 4 years: 10,500,000 coins
  next 4 years: 5,250,000 coins
  next 4 years: 2,625,000 coins
  next 4 years: 1,312,500 coins

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#130
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Endorsements and nifty tech are nothing without actual use. Nano suffers from the same problem that 99.9% of cryptocurrencies suffer from: no useful information on how an average person might actually USE it. Google brings various ways you can BUY Nano in order to speculate. I want to see real world usage, I want to buy VPN/Hosting/Alpaca Socks using Nano. PS Nano is also 100% pre-mined which means one would have to…

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=raiblocks https://www.statista.com/statistics/268225/countries-with-th... You do not see it because you likely fall outside of the demographic of cryptocurrency first users: businesses and citizens in countries facing hyperinflation, black markets, gambling, porn users seeking anonymity, legal pot businesses in the west cut-off from traditional banking in the west, legal por…

See, I remember the huge growth in merchant adoption in 2013 for Bitcoin and how for a moment in time Bitcoin was useful as a currency. I actually used Bitcoin back then from my 2011 minings.

Now I agree that there is a niche for Monero in black markets.

Then there should be a huge opportunity for some crypto currency to take over Bitcoin in the role as a medium of exchange for general public.

Thus it really irks me that I am not seeing these supposedly revolutionary crypto currencies attempt to do anything useful.

Why doesn't any cryptocurrency focus on usability for a regular audience first?

Post reply on HN