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

131–140 of 216 posts

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#131

Post by __blockcipher__ »

eklitzke wrote: post #110
colordrops wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I guess that's true based on your definition of "trustless". But I wouldn't consider a network where as a practical matter I have to rely on a small number of centralized servers for validation "trustless".

lol, with lightning you have to rely on a small number of centralized payment hubs who will likely be strongarmed by the government into keeping tabs on transactions through KYC/AML laws.

It completely breaks the fundamental and original usecase of bitcoin: peer to peer electronic cash.

Now it's "first world speculator to first world speculator through intermediary financial institution electronic store-of-value". Doesn't roll of the tongue quite so well, does it?

IMO, XMR and BCH are the current best options for transactions. BTC is being destroyed by people who hadn't even heard of it 5 years ago.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#132

Post by topranks »

eklitzke wrote: post #110
colordrops wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I guess that's true based on your definition of "trustless". But I wouldn't consider a network where as a practical matter I have to rely on a small number of centralized servers for validation "trustless".

That is true. I guess my definition is as long as new players / players with different motives and agendas can join the fray, it is ok.

So like I don't mind if we end up that you need at least $1million to become a miner, hell we are half way there anyway on both chains, I just mind if nobody can join, or if it goes to $1billion to be able to mine.

LN seems like the ultimate in centralisation so as an alternative (while it might work,) it's a far inferior solution on that score.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#133

Post by darawk »

dlubarov wrote: post #126
darawk wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 jus…

I think the idea is that due to the existence of LN, you would almost never need to settle on-chain. But because you theoretically could, you maintain all the benefits of genuine financial sovereignty without ever having to actually exercise it.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#134

Post by __blockcipher__ »

colordrops wrote: post #93
Ajedi32 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 8000GB drives cost about $150 now That's enough to handle the blockchain size increasing by one order of magnitude. I just talked about a scenario where it could conceivably increase by 3. Storage is indeed cheap, but not _that_ cheap. Unless you're envisioning a scenario where only large stakeholders like miners and exchanges ever have to store a full copy of the blockchain.

Why would transactions increase but not space per dollar? Has disk technology stopped progressing? The time it takes to increase by 3 is probably the amount of time disk space will increase by 3 at the same cost.

Exactly. Costs for computing/disk storage go down exponentially.

Cryptocurrency tx/sec goes up exponentially.

As long as the two rates roughly cancel out, we're okay. If they're massively different rates, then you're still dealing with an exponential which is difficult. Either way though, lightning is a linear benefit, not an exponential one. And it comes at the cost of breaking everything that made bitcoin great in the first place.

I don't ever want to have to deal with an intermediary financial institution again. Somehow, the pro-BTC side of the chain thinks that view is ridiculous.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#135

Post by softawre »

BLanen wrote: post #100
wmf wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe routes won't get invalidated if hub-to-hub credit is 100x larger than any single transaction.

So... You have to trust these edges/connections? Who will enforce this? How would you know the largest transaction that has occured somewhere else in the network?... trustlessly? Why 100x?

> why 100x?

Why not over 9000x?

Thanks for sharing that video above!

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#136

Post by __blockcipher__ »

tboyd47 wrote: post #113
__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 w…

False analogy. In terms of throughput the analogy is good, but you neglected that lightning breaks how bitcoin works. You need to get permission from a centralized lightning hub to transact.

Also, high fees (which blockstream vocally is in favor of) increase UTXO bloat by preventing consolidation

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#137

Post by SnowProblem »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #121
SnowProblem wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 partic…

It's nonsensical to shutdown the discussion so quickly. This wasn't a BIP. You can hash the UXTO set and put the hash in the blockchain, or put the UXTO set in special blocks, or cross-validate the UXTO set across nodes. There are solutions.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#138

Post by Klathmon »

School-Cotton wrote: post #127
Klathmon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That time is completely configurable between you and the person you are opening a channel with, 3 days just seems to be the number everyone is gravitating toward using as a good default since it's long enough that short times offline won't cause you to be vulnerable to fraudulent transactions, but not long enough to cause issue if the channel you are working with decides to close up suddenly (because after the locktime is up you can broadcast a transaction which gives you all the money in the channel).

And yes, your bank can reimburse your for fraudulent charges (the amount and timing depends on your location), but that also depends on your bank not deciding that your fraud isn't actually fraud, it depends on you (as in your person) constantly checking your accounts for fraud and manually reporting it to the proper channels when it happens, you are still out the money while they investigate and reimburse in some cases, they will lock and reissue your card which often takes days to arrive leaving you without a card in the meantime, they can deny your account entirely for any number of reasons, they can control what you are able to buy with your card for any number of reasons, the cost of a bank account is far from free, they can and will charge you to get access to your own money quite often, and they can deny you from withdrawing your own money at any time for just about any reason (including "you are withdrawing too much money").

Neither option is perfect, nobody says they are, but I really believe that a system like Bitcoin and LN are a significant improvement over the traditional banking system in many ways. It is worse in some ways for sure, but I feel the benefits far outweigh the down sides.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#139

Post by def_true_false »

blattimwind wrote: post #91
gruez wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he meant counterparty risk on the payment side (ie. no chargebacks).

Wire transfers don't have chargebacks.

From the SEPA Credit Transfer Scheme Rulebook[1]:

A Recall occurs when the Originator Bank requests to cancel a SEPA Credit Transfer. The Recall procedure must be initiated by the Originator Bank within 10 Banking Business Days after execution date of the SCT subject to the Recall.

...

A bank may initiate a Recall procedure for following reasons only:

• Duplicate sending

• Technical problems resulting in erroneous SCT(s)

• Fraudulent originated Credit Transfer

[1] https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/sites/default/files/K...

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#140

Post by SnowProblem »

osteele wrote: post #26
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.

> then there will be more demands to make the blocks bigger again, eventually leading to centralization Because having a bigger block size raises the barrier to being a miner. (CapEx and OpEx are both greater.) Imagine the other extreme: mining is so cheap that every phone, watch, and — oh let's just throw in every mouse and pigeon cortex — can be a miner. This is near one extreme of decentralization. That's unattain…

If anyone can be a miner, then malware can be used to do a 51% attack. Something like that happened with Monero recently [1].

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/news/sites-are-using-your-brows...

Post reply on HN