81–90 of 216 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone can setup "watchdog" services that you can give your revocation transactions to and they can watch the blockchain for any attempts to "steal" your money and if any are found they can instantly broadcast the revocation. Doing it this way you don't give the "watchdog" service any control of your BTC, just the ability to broadcast countersignatures, which means there is still no counterparty risk here. You could…
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.
My understanding is that with the normal lightning network, there is a reward built in that you receive if your counterparty tries to fraudulently close the transaction. You receive your money + some of what they owned. From what I remember, watchtowers can be incentivized by receiving a portion of this money. This way you only pay something if your counterparty tries to screw you, and the amount you pay doesn't come out of your money.
tldr; I think the watchtower fees are only paid if a problem occurs, and even then your counterparty is the one that effectively pays the fee.
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)...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone can setup "watchdog" services that you can give your revocation transactions to and they can watch the blockchain for any attempts to "steal" your money and if any are found they can instantly broadcast the revocation. Doing it this way you don't give the "watchdog" service any control of your BTC, just the ability to broadcast countersignatures, which means there is still no counterparty risk here. You could…
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.
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 transactions, as long as you connect to the network once every 3 days, you can handle it yourself.
>...and no watchdog will work for free.
I'm sure you are correct, but we will need to see the exact costs here. I'm guessing (and it is a complete guess) that the costs here won't be that bad at all. You could write a service that scans the blockchain for these transactions that would easily run on a very small server with a VERY large number of revocation transactions, so it's not like it's a large cost to run a service like this. Not to mention that the "fee" for these services could be paid by "penalty" forced onto the person that tried to cheat you when the revocation transaction is broadcast, incentivizing the watchdog service to catch the fraudulent transactions (since that's the only way they get paid).
Plus I have a feeling this can easily be a value-added service to many exchanges and custodial wallets.
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)...
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…
ICO's that promise guaranteed returns are scams. Nano is an open source project that aims to give people an alternative to government currency. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=raiblocks The most interest as measured by google search activity in the world for raiblocks/nano is in Venezuela; you'll find a similar pattern of top search results coming from countries where citizens are looking for alternative currencies -- Kosovo, Cyprus, Greece, etc -- with other useful cryptocurrencies.
disclaimer: I interviewed with the team back in January and turned down a contractor role but was impressed with their mission and roadmap.
Did the Lightning Network solve the routing problem now or are they still emulating banks by requiring permanent online super nodes?
Even with the hub-spokes model, it won't work since every transaction has the power to invalidate multiple routes. The white paper is a joke. https://youtu.be/Ug8NH67_EfE?t=635 People are just handwaving this away like it's a side thought, while touting the solution this gives as THE gift to mankind to get away from traditional banks. Another cryptocurrency 'innovation' delivering overly complex solutions to problems…
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)…
Because these altcoins are default scams. Nano is basically iota + proof of stake. None of which have been shown to work in a decentralized fashion.
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.
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 reduction in people who can afford to transact on the main chain.
But when it comes to maintaining the core trustless network inherent in the bit coin algorithm, increasing block size does nothing to break its function.
Stop with the propaganda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It quickly gets very expensive to do so.
How? If the proof of work only takes a few seconds, what prevents someone from spamming a new transaction every few seconds?
Nanoblocks does serve some purpose in my mind, but it has major issues to solve, and in no way is a catch-all solution for the scaling problems that Bitcoin has.
[0] https://hackernoon.com/stress-testing-the-raiblocks-network-...