Live data from Hacker News

The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

papers.ssrn.com

321–330 of 448 posts

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah sending value through the internet without an intermediary that can't be stopped, confiscated or censored is whatever Maybe the problem is that you lack an understanding of what money should be and what problems banking and fiat have?

I would argue the negatives outweigh the positives here: Tax evasion, money laundering, trafficking, drugs, sanctions evasion etc. Since the introduction of KYC it's very hard to do any of these in the traditional finance system. And each of them has very serious implications for people's lives.

I suppose you want cash and art banned too?

Those are even better money laundering tools than Bitcoin.

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#322
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, fwiw, imho it's good criticism and skepticism is warranted and I agree with it. But it's early days. I always warn here on HN that we should not throw the baby away with the bathwater, meaning, don't kill (or over-regulate) blockchain before it can grow into something nice (from the monster it is now). Imho these are the seeds of something nice, but it's not there yet. I can feel it coming though, because of th…

It's not still early days. Bitcoin was created 13 years ago, it was useless for payments back then and it's still useless for payments now. Every direction that anyone takes it will be in the direction of some kind of pure money-making thing, usually in the form of a ponzi or pyramid scheme. This has happened over and over again for 13 years. There's simply no one else interested in building on this because everyone…

Don't you want a money that people can't fuck with by printing according to politicians will?

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#323
post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they have access to USDC. I love how people pull out the privilege card the second you suggest that a so-called currency that loses 70% of its value in a year (BTC) might not be that good for poor folks. True privilege is being able to lose 70% of your net currency value in a single year without being on the street and advocating for it even after. For everyone else, there are better choices. I suspect somewhere a…

USDC != USD. We know what happened to UST, the rest will follow. Poor folks are also buying homes, which will drop, in some places maybe 100% in the next year, but nobody doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

Obviously there's a world of difference between a Ponzi scheme like UST and USDC. However, that doesn't change my point - which is that a proper, tokenized dollar - or even USD CBDC would solve everything you're trying to solve but better. So let's start advocating for that. It's not privilege to call out that you have a bad solution and that better solutions exist.

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#324

Lightning is a remix of the correspondent banking network. If it grows it will devolve into a small set of large centralized nodes that act as gateway for most transactions. Think JPMorgan and Citi as nodes. The reason is funding channels is expensive: you can’t leave $10M sitting there doing nothing. It’s got to earn it’s cost of capital. This is why Western Union charges so much for transfers.

Lightning is an environment where all the nodes have to compete on cost (or speed) and everything is digital. The costs of transactions are currently near zero now, is there a reason you think it will increase?

There are a lot of people that want to just hold onto Bitcoin right now. Maybe the cost of a Lightning transaction will go up dramatically if that changes? But if such a protocol evolves to support swapping coins in and out of the channel lockup from different owners than potentially anyone holding Bitcoin for any duration can contribute.

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#325
post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue the negatives outweigh the positives here: Tax evasion, money laundering, trafficking, drugs, sanctions evasion etc. Since the introduction of KYC it's very hard to do any of these in the traditional finance system. And each of them has very serious implications for people's lives.

I suppose you want cash and art banned too? Those are even better money laundering tools than Bitcoin.

> Those are even better money laundering tools than Bitcoin.

How are cash and art better for money laundering than Bitcoin?

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#326
Many are taken with the idea that blockchain can be trusted in a world without trust. Governments can't mutate it. No one owns it. My sense is that this inspires an almost religious faith in some people. Google's ability to find just what I was looking for inspired a similar sense of wonder in me.

Unfortunately, SEO scam artists began to game Google and now they are corrupting the blockchain idea, but I don't think we should underestimate the power of people who keep the faith over the long haul to eventually make something legitimate out of it

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#327

When will the blockchain ecosystem provide something with that "WOW I need this in my life right now" factor to the average user? Google went from a research project to incorporated and usable on the internet in roughly two years with a total investment of about $2mm in 2022 money. Let's just say the pace of innovation had some serious roadblocks at the time (they literally had to build their own servers and host the…

Bitcoin is not a concrete product like Google Search or a smartphone. It's more of an idea, like free speech. The idea being money without a central authority, something that has never really existed before (digitally, at least). No one woke up one day and thought "WOW I need democracy" or "WOW I need free speech". It's abstract and doesn't gratify immediately. The average person does not even have a conception that…

I use these examples in layers (I have a networking background so my mind more or less thinks in OSI layers).

For actual products bitcoin (and blockchains like Ethereum with EVM) are the fundamental enabling layer. I like to think of them somewhat akin to TCP/IP or even HTTP. Where are the higher layer applications and use cases built on blockchain with instant and obvious utility to the average person walking down the street? This is what I was getting at with the decade plus of development and billions of dollars of investment.

The internet was a fundamental threat to all kinds of institutions - governments with censorship, big media (including state run), and even financial institutions. The internet provided instant untold value for democracy and free speech. Just widespread and instantly available encryption itself was a HUGE problem and threat to governments, law enforcement, militaries, intelligence agencies, etc. Remember the Clipper Chip "debate" and 40 bit encryption export controls? I do.

Yet the obvious value and utility was so clear even governments like China (with the Great Firewall) knew it was of such incredible value to the economy and clamored for by the citizenry they figured out a way to make it work within their system of government. Inside of a decade billions of people were using the internet to further democracy, free speech, and the dissemination of information.

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really dislike this whole initiative and much prefer the patreon model. One reason of course might be that i am listening to Jupiter Broadcast and Chris pushes this stuff hard, really annoying me with the constant talk about lightning and especially the boosts, which seem to take over half the show, because somehow he seems not to realize that the problem he has in getting regular supporters is the insane price he…

why should content creators have to go through a centralized website like Patreon in order to get value from their consumers, giving Patreon a cut in the process? sure it's (for now) more straightforward for end-users, but as a content creator you're locking yourself into the Patreon Platform, you're building (at least some subset of) your content and your business around it being specifically "Patreon content". I'm…

> why should content creators have to go through a centralized website like Patreon in order to get value from their consumers, giving Patreon a cut in the process? sure it's (for now) more straightforward for end-users…

You answered your own question, but there's also no reason to use a "centralized website" (i.e. a 3rd-party service) if it doesn't add value. You just handle the subs yourself and provide a unique feed URL in return.

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It keeps many of the properties of bitcoin: - decentralised - trustless - censure resistance Edit: - pseudonymous

I'm confused by your comment, L2 transactions are by definition run by centralized entities.

What's your definition of L2 that include centralised entities?

There is no central authority in LN. There may be "hubs" which are more or less important, but that's not centralisation because there are several of them, it can also work without them, and also they can't steal your money.

Would you say that email is centralised because there area few big server (Gmail, Microsoft)? But even if it may more convenient to use one of the big server, you still have the choice not to use them.

Re: The Lightning Network: Turning Bitcoin into Money

#330
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for one, the base currency in question is uncensorable. e.g. I for one find it detestable that fruits and nuts sellers in Iran suffer immensely because of US sanctions. The idea that innocent citizens are being made to suffer for their governments policy (especially in more authoritarian countries) is gross. I see it akin to punishing a child for their parents behavior.

Humans make mistakes. Systems that intend to serve humans have to accommodate that flaw in order to be viable. Fixing mistakes means rewriting history. That means censorship. And so censorship isn't a bad thing. It's actually a core requirement for any system designed for broad usage.

Flawed logic, censorship can be a mistake just like anything else. Adding the ability to fix mistakes with censorship also adds the ability to make mistakes with censorship. Censorship, however is centralized power and therefore trades fixing small scale mistakes with the centralized power to make big mistakes. This is why western society and individual liberties have been so dominant in modern history. Authoritarian societies have fallen one after another, further evidence that it is incorrect to treat centralization as something other than a bad tradeoff.
Post reply on HN