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

211–216 of 216 posts

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#211

Post by nosuchthing »

hndamien wrote: post #189
nosuchthing wrote: post #61

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…

And Charlie Lee is a scam artist, so no surprises there. In light of the downvotes with no response, here is some reasoning. He bought in at around $30, and the first thing he did was clone BTC with minor negligible modifications. Philosophically at that time, this shows a remarkable lack of commitment to the underlying goal. Then, during the recent boom he completely cashes out of his own project while the market ca…

Cognitive dissonance among Bitcoin minimalists is quiet amusing.

You think Bitcoin is good but fear Litecoin for creating a new alternative system?

You think deregulating into a anarcho-capitalist deflationary market is good, but then complain when someone does something you don't agree with?

  but proof of stake, unfortunately, results in all rewards 
  to creators and an unsatisfying amount of control among 
  people where distribution was guaranteed for no "work".
Apparently you haven't bothered to look at how Bitcoin is created? The supply is generated in such a way that a small group of users spent minimal work (CAPEX+OPEX) to generate the majority of the supply. All "rewards" of the supply went to the smallest population of the world. Satoshi just created a new system for oligarchical wealth extraction.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#212

Post by __blockcipher__ »

Sir_Substance wrote: post #153
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about the cost of future tx thruput and comparing it to today's storage prices. How can you not see what's wrong with that? >But bigger blocks is definitely not that solution. How easy it is to make a claim without any proof. >Originally with the 1MB block, there were quite a lot of full bitcoin nodes running on raspberry PI's under peoples desks in places with really shitty internet. Segwit kinda-sort…

>You're talking about the cost of future tx thruput and comparing it to today's storage prices. How can you not see what's wrong with that? There is nothing on the horizon that suggests a 4TB/month growth rate will be serviceable by anything less than data-center grade hardware at any point in the next 10 years. Beyond then, it's a crapshoot. I'd /like/ to see bitcoin operate at Visa scales before then, so I must loo…

I used to own 7 BTC. Then converted it to BCH/XMR. Then sold most of it a couple months ago, mainly due to concerns about tether / general market mania

Once BTC fees hit $40 average tx (I paid $100 due to UTXOs increasing my tx size in bytes because I actually used bitcoin to transact), I had to accept that BTC was done.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#213

Post by siwatanejo »

blattimwind wrote: post #49
siwatanejo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but using a "virtual" money that doesn't have counterparty risk, and cannot be counterfeited by anyone.

Since when eliminates Bitcoin counterparty risk? Also, counterfeit notes may be an issue, but counterfeit transfers are not.

Bitcoin is the only non-physical currency you can hold without counterparty risk. (If you have a bank account with EUR, and that bank freezes your account or shuts down because of bankruptcy, yo don't have access to your money.)

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#214

Post by vagab0nd »

apo wrote: post #51
thisisit wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Each one represents a kind of private ledger. That is an interesting quote. So, without the blockchain, how does Lightning track which transactions have been completed?

Each transaction spending the locked funds bears the signature of the party making the payment. The other party can then provide the counter-signature making the transaction valid on the Bitcoin network. The main security problem to solve is preventing one party from publishing a previous channel state (half-signed transaction) giving themselves more money than they actually have by rights. For example, Alice and Bob…

This makes sense. However, this also means as one party of the off-chain transaction, I need to constantly monitor the main chain to make sure the other party doesn't try to screw me up. And if they do I need to publish the contract before they spend the money.

Is this correct? And how can this be made 100% bulletproof?

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#215

Post by XR0CSWV3h3kZWg »

raulvbrito1705 wrote: post #193
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fair to compare them in terms of tx fee/volume, but excluding the different security guarantees is pretty bs. It's also interesting to note that Nano doesn't incentives miners.

Nano has no miners ;)

Fair enough. Nothing to incentive full nodes.

Re: First Lightning mainnet release

#216

Post by hndamien »

nosuchthing wrote: post #211
hndamien wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Charlie Lee is a scam artist, so no surprises there. In light of the downvotes with no response, here is some reasoning. He bought in at around $30, and the first thing he did was clone BTC with minor negligible modifications. Philosophically at that time, this shows a remarkable lack of commitment to the underlying goal. Then, during the recent boom he completely cashes out of his own project while the market ca…

Cognitive dissonance among Bitcoin minimalists is quiet amusing. You think Bitcoin is good but fear Litecoin for creating a new alternative system? You think deregulating into a anarcho-capitalist deflationary market is good, but then complain when someone does something you don't agree with? but proof of stake, unfortunately, results in all rewards to creators and an unsatisfying amount of control among people where…

Not quite. Your points are very valid, but you need to compare it with the current system. The new system of oligarchs comes with new constraints. The initial creators in some ways deserve to be significantly rewarded for such an innovation, as the new constraints are that supply is limited, thereby the rising tide lifts all boats of participants. Proof of Stake does this but takes away a significant randomness in distribution and guarantees that the majority is held initially by one authority - this is not guaranteed at all with POW, and if not premined, then even better.

Your other crticism of maximalists fearing an alternative, this is really just BS. I will gladly tell you (as many maximalists will) that Monero is actually better on most fronts that Bitcoin tries to win on. Scalability is really the only thing it leads on, and this is not out of the realms of possibility for Monero. So you can choose your oligarchs, and you can choose how they are constrained. Hopefully your community will grow such that you all benefit.

Post reply on HN