Memes aside does this the lightning network actually work?

The transaction fees and confirmation times are getting insane. The tech will even be bad as a "store of value" in the near future at the rate this is going.

Other urls found in this thread:

bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

maybe.

Do you trust me when I say that I understand how LN works and that it works? If so, my answer is yes. If not, my answer is still yes.

Assuming that LN is adopted by many people in the year 2018, we will see a moon mission like there has never been one before.

Bump. It's very interesting but hardly discussed here.
Is it really the ultimate scaling solution?

no, its fucking retarded

Yes it works and it solves the merchant problem. Now we have to focus on getting exchanges to implement it.

Yes it works but you will still transact on chain for your private transactions

maybe. we will se when litecoin implements it 1-2 years before bitcoin

No it doesn't help much in day to day shit. The network is currently clogged because of just new buyers. It takes a bitcoin transaction to open a payment channel and a bitcoin transaction to close a payment channel. And you can only use the BTC you deposited to the payment channel within the payment channel. You want to buy coffees every day for a month? Ok well sure lightning can help with that. But you still need to have, and be willing to lock up enough BTC for those 30 coffees, and be willing to pay for a transaction to open the channel and a transaction to close the channel. At current prices these 2 transactions will be about $30 alone. If you want to send your BTC from one exchange to another they will probably have payment channels open to do that luckily, but if your holding in your own wallet lightning isn't going to help with the most transactions you do. V1 is also already available on ETH.

It's *worse* than idiotic. It actually compromises the core value proposition of cryptocurrencies period.

If all the funds can be locked up in lightning nodes, the blockchain is basically irrelevant. The vast majority of transfers are being forced off chain in bitcoin by artificially limiting supply of blockchain throughput. This is exactly how you would manipulate the money supply by fractional reserve in the system if you were an old kike wanting to play your tricks on the new system designed to stop you.

And so many complete fucking retards who have been in this game for years now just can't fucking see it. Pisses me off so much to have to share oxygen with these people.

These retards do see it but do not care. They only want to be rich. And apparently you are a "communist" for wanting it otherwise. America really needs to get rid of its McCartianism.

Even if it works flawlessly, I still will have serious misgivings about bitcoin settlement with 1mb blocks. Is it ever okay to have $3+ transaction fees and take hours to complete a transaction? It will take a while for a good second layer infrastructure to be widely adopted and bitcoin is going to suck hard until then and probably after then being this clogged up.

I think you are the stupid one

Sharding and plasma are better solutions to these problems. Also people say PoS on ETH will increase the throughput but I don't understand how.

Sharding: Not every node has to verify every transaciton. Think of having like a 'games' shard and so on. It will take 1 transaction on each shard to get to another shard. Pretty much like an atomic transfer.

Plasma: Applications can run their own subblockchains and go to the higher network when there is a dispute or you need to get to another chain. This is good because if you control all the nodes in a subblockchain, think OMGs payment network, then you can increase the throughput of the network because you can define all the specifications of the nodes. The higher the specs of the nodes the more transactions they can process per second.

Fuck them even harder then. I came here for freedom, getting rich comes from that and doing well in a free environment. I'll take being poor and free over enslaved and rich any day. And I'd argue "enslaved and rich" is an idiotic concept at any rate.

When LN hit mainstream bitcoin won't moon anymore
It just ponzi scheme for early smart money

>bitcoin settlement

hahaha poor BCash fag spotted. how is your Pajeetcoin doing?

How is it fractional reserve?

>People buying BTC because it's a "deflationary store of value"
>LN's economic model encourages nodes to race to the bottom for atomic swap fees, eventually removing any penalty for changing which "chain" your money is on due to perfect liquidity

Really makes you think

Yeah I'm pretty sure you were just a lying Cashie. It's full reserve. If funds are tied up in a lightning channel it doesn't inflate the supply at all.

What happens when a lightning node with 10,000 BTC approves 100,000 BTC worth of transactions? Keep in mind the node is completely opaque. You can't see that it's done this until someone tries to actually close more channels than the node has backing for, until then they're taking the node's word for it just like a rube is taking the bank's word for it that they have the gold this paper supposedly entitles them to, back when that was the system, or the cash reserves now we're on an officially sanctioned fractional reserve full fiat system.

The central fact remains that an opaque centralised node has power to play the fractional reserve game right up until it gets called out by a blockchain bank run, which means prior to that the game can be played and profits raked in.

After that the rubes will finally see that crypto didn't change the underlying game at all, not realising it was only that way because fucking blockstream hijacked the apparatus and turned it into nothing but a glorified digital banking system the snakes of the old world could play their exact same game on, this time with the sanction of people who thought they had an out.

The amount of people who will ever even noticed what actually happened will be a rounding error.

I admit I'm pretty ignorant about the subject but what you described doesn't seem to even remotely resemble how it works..

>What happens when a lightning node with 10,000 BTC approves 100,000 BTC worth of transactions?

How does it do that?

>Until then they're taking the node's word for it just like a rube is taking the bank's word for it that they have the gold this paper supposedly entitles them to,

No, it's not a "piece of paper", it's all done with real blockchain transactions with multi-sig addresses and trustless methods to enforce cooperation like Check Sequence Verify and hashed timelock contracts.

Isn't it just a dedicated payment channel that allows off-chain transactions until the channel is closed and the total transaction amount is uploaded to the blockchain?

Dunno about you, but I'd rather not allow trust-required transactions into the mix. That's what we are trying to get away from.

You're wrong. Actually read the lightning white paper that gives a full description of poon-dryja payment channels, and specifically how they differ from the nakamoto high frequency channels that satoshi originally speculated about. The critical difference is that lightning channels need never be settled to the blockchain period, and are not visible to the mempool at all.

On chain transaction throughout artificially restricted to a completely insane level plus insane on chain fees mean that even theoretically settling a lightning channel adversarially is a hard ask at the best of times, and that same artificially restricted supply pushes the absolute vast majority of transaction activity onto lightning nodes, with the blockchain basically only being used to settle between these massive centralised lightning nodes, keeping the bank level players honest with each other and allowing them to screw rubes just like they do in the traditional banking system.

It doesn't require any trust or else it wouldn't even be on the table.

bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/

I tried reading this and admittedly failed to understand it because I'm a brainlet, but it doesn't AT ALL match what this guy is saying about "opaque centralized nodes", I'm pretty sure he doesn't understand it either and is making shit up.

>falling for the (((Lightning Network))) meme
just increase blocksize faggots lmao

I love that you're a self admitted fucking idiot and yet you still speculate you must be right about this because reasons.

Read the fucking lightning white paper. Read gold collapsing bitcoin up. The information is there, it's not a mystery at this stage. Just complete fuckwits like you are willfully blind to it on purpose.

This was the plan all along you fucking retard. And you and those like you not only walked right into it, you cheer for the slave masters as they come around to collar you again.

You make me fucking sick.

>What happens when a lightning node with 10,000 BTC approves 100,000 BTC worth of transactions?

It would fail. When the channel was opened, the blockchain received notification that the channel was good for 10,000 BTC and would know this in exactly the same way the blockchain knows your wallet is good for (say) 0.5 BTC. 100,000 BTC > 10,000 BTC so the channel cannot be closed until the number falls to less than or equal 10,000 BTC.

It's not centralized, anyone can open a lightning channel. And funds can't go anywhere without the permission of both participants in the channel, if one participant tries to steal the funds they will get penalized after the Check Sum Verify or Check Time Lock Verify period ends. That's not fractional reserve in any way, shape, or form. It has nothing to do with any of the shit you're saying.

Sure in same way how "internet" is not centralized as well. Anyone can be google or cloudflare, anyone can be central authority, isp, TLD, or name registar.

If you have 1 btc you can only transmit a total up to 1 btc. Result, only humongous parties can route for relevant amounts of time, and there are very few of them. Thus, centralized.

why? they are recorded forever on the blockchain unlike LN.
LN seems more private, although it depends how centralized it is I guess.

I have a hundred ounces of gold.
I write notes to multiple people that they have credit for a hundred ounces of gold.
I hand these notes out to acquire goods and services.
I get away with it as long as nobody tries to cash out more of these notes than I have in circulation all at once.

There is nothing about the above situation that cannot be done using on chain btc vs off chain lightning transactions. You don't ever know about the lightning transactions with which you are not involved. It would all collapse if those channels caught onto the con and settled on chain, the last to do so would be left drawing against a zero on chain balance. But prior to that by the very nature of replicating a settlement network with opaque transaction layers between large scale banking hubs, obviously it is vulnerable to the exact same con that has been played in that realm for fucking centuries.

And complete fucking retards honestly manage to convince themselves this is an accident.

But this isn't what happens. You have a hundred ounces of gold. You write a credit note to a partner that they have the hundred ounces of gold and the blockchain accepts it. (The open transaction). You issue another credit note for one ounce of gold to someone else and the blockchain refuses it because you've already dedicated all your hundred ounces of gold in the first transaction.

All you can do is tell people that they have a credit of 100 ounces, and yo umight fool some of them into not checking the blockchain if you're good for it. But neither banks nor blockchain can protect fools from believing liars

No the blockchain doesn't accept it. Do you understand what an off chain transaction even is? Nobody except you and the party you're transacting with sees that transaction. In theory the transaction *could* be settled to the blockchain just like in theory a guy *could* show up in your doorstep with a promissory note for a hundred ounces of gold, but neither of those things are necessary components of the standard operation of the system.

The simple fact is that having transactions on chain is exactly what protects us from this situation. Off chain transactions are necessarily by nature vulnerable. Saying otherwise is imagining I could hand out a hundred signed btc transactions for 1 BTC on usb keys to random strangers drawing on an on chain balance of 10 BTC and there is flatly no way for them to know until those transactions actually hit the blockchain.

It's not up for debate, this is how this actually works.

>Nobody except you and the party you're transacting with sees that transaction.
Wrong. The entire network knows through the blockchain that you and your party are dedicating particular coins to an unseen transaction because *those coins were identified* in the channel open transaction. Until the channel is closed and the blockchain updated with the result, those coins cannot be double spent by either party.

As for your second para, if you have 10 BTC and you issue 100 USB keys, then you will only be able to sign off different coins for the first 10 keys. The remaining 90 keys would have to be ten sets of nine clones of one of those first 10 keys. The first of each of those group of ten would be honoured by the blockchain. The remaining nine in each group would be discarded as an attempt to double spend.

All you have done so far is note that people lie and others can believe them. You have yet to make a worked technical criticism.

>private