What is Veeky Forums' thoughts on the Lightning Network?

In b4 fractional reserve strawanon

My single biggest problem with segwit is that, as a developer, it smells like a dirty hack to me.

Repurposing an "anyone-can-spend-this" output flag just for the sake of a semblance of backwards compatibility? Just to avoid a data protocol change?
That sort of coding approach is what led to this horror story: dougseven.com/2014/04/17/knightmare-a-devops-cautionary-tale/

...

It's the thing I'm excited most for. Will propel btc price into the stratosphere.

It’s dumb beyond words.

biz is too stupid to understand the LN.

The fuck? And this is who you guys think Satoshi is? No wonder he got ALS and died. BTFO.

Raise the block size or come up with a solution that wont suck as bad.

It's centralization but it's (((OUR))) centralization!

This

More like the kikening network

the jews killed this man.

Man, the moment those cocksuckers run out of greater fools and their unusable shitcoin crashes to zero can't come soon enough.

if I wanted an unnecessarily overengineered and overcomplicated cryptocurrency prone to breakage I'd go with ethereum

Nobody has yet explained to me how fractional reserve is possible with the lightning network.

>Bob has 10 BTC
>He starts a bidirectional payment channel with Alice.
>They both commit 5 BTC to multi-sig addresses.
>They can now make micropayments but never more than the real full reserve amount they commited from the blockchain.
>At the same time he opens a channel with Charlie.
>He can now act as an intermediary between Charlie and Alice but he can't steal their funds because he would get his original 5 BTC penalized after the Check Time Lock Verify or Check Sequence Verify period ends.
>He can't fractional reserve his coins and open a new channel with another person because all his coins are tied up in Charlie and Alice's multi-sig addresses.

They just say "That's the nature of off chain transactions" without explaining how exactly it would be possible in the lightning network.

My understanding is that it happens within a node. EG. someone fakes a payment with someone else on the same node. Of course the funds on the node itself are the same but now it looks like one person got paid when they really didn't.

The lightning network is like proposing to spend a year of scientific research to develop the perfect fire extinguisher when your house is currently on fire.

They really did though. They have the transaction they can broadcast to get ALL the BTC in the multi-sig address back, not just their own commited BTC, if the person tries to steal BTC.

lol thats pretty good

You know what's funny?

1) If BTC price didn't go up this year every BTC supporter would be raging about how core is shit and failed them. Since it is going up they love core.

2) Core could have easily raised blocks to 4 or 8mb at least in the short term to allow for more transactions and if they had BTC price might be twice what it is today. In fact if they had there wouldn't even be BCH competing against them and threatening their hash power.

Core fanboys are so delusional.

The Truth About the Lightning Network

youtu.be/6V365_59-Lc

Also in my example Bob would be the "node" between Alice and Charlie. There's bi-directional payment channels built with multi-sig between each person. Each of those connections require real BTC committed from the blockchain to establish. Anyone he tries to gyp would be able to claim those BTC by broadcasting the transaction after Check Lock Time Verify or Check Sequence Verify ends. Anyone who says they won't be able to because they can't afford the fee is retarded. You would be doubling your BTC. Even if Bob were a mega rich "banker" in principle everything works the same way, he can't steal anyones BTC without this massive penalty.

It's not about stealing Bitcoin, it is about faking a transaction though. This would be easy especially if the node just leaves a lot of Bitcoin just sitting on the node from someones wallet.
>BigNode1 which employs me to do a job claims to be paying me
>They really aren't and are just faking a transaction to me
>By the time I go to take my Bitcoin off the node I am rejected and the blockchain proves that I really didn't get paid at all.

fpbp

>blockchain is amazing guys! this tech will change the world. Lets not use it

That's what Coinbase is, not Segwit/LN.

Based on my experience, anything with lightning in the name is shit.

Especially Jewish Lightning.

By "claiming to be paying me" and "faking a transaction", in technical terms that would mean they would be trying to broadcast the transaction to the blockchain in the old state. The white paper describes what happens if you try this:

>Since any signed Commitment Transaction may be broadcast on the blockchain, and only one can be successfully broadcast, it is necessary to prevent old Commitment Transactions from being broadcast. It is not possible to revoke tens of thousands of transactions in Bitcoin, so an alternate method is necessary. Instead of active revocation enforced by the blockchain, it’s necessary to construct the channel itself in similar manner to a Fidelity Bond, whereby both parties make commitments, and 11 violations of these commitments are enforced by penalties. If one party violates their agreement, then they will lose all the money in the channel. For this payment channel, the contract terms are that both parties commit to broadcasting only the most recent transaction. Any broadcast of older transactions will cause a violation of the contract, and ALL FUNDS ARE GIVEN TO THE OTHER PARTY AS PENALTY.

You better HOPE they try that because you can get ALL their money in the Commitment Transaction.

It does use the blockchain, every bi-directional payment channel is a multi-sig address broadcast onto the blockchain.

Yes brainlet, the channel broadcasts to the blockchain, but individuals don't. This also adds a level of trust to the game that didn't exist before, which is wonderful for when powers that be want to censor things.

No, you don't get it.

But why would they bother broadcasting it on the blockchain if they can just do/fake it within the node and avoid fees? I know that they can just pay the fee to take over an attackers money if they do attempt it on the blockchain but what if they don't? And what incentive would someone even have to constantly pay fees to verify everyone elses balance?

Holy fuck, buttcoiners BTFO

Wow, I'm completely swayed by your argument.

LN is a fancy name hyping up Multi-signature addresses. It's a shared address where bob and alice can agree to change who owns what amount in the share.
But only 2 people can share an address, so it isn't very good for connecting more than two people. Alice can share with Bob, and Bob can share with Charlie, but Alice is limited to sending to charlie what bob's share is in bob-charlie's address.
So in practice LN can only have two people, the central hub, and consumers. This gives the central hub power to charge fees for using the hub, or they simply won't let you connect. The entire network will be limited by the median amount of money each channel contains. If each user deposits $1000 into 6 channels, the highest transfer you could do would be $500 before you had to do an on-chain transaction.

It removes "trustless" and "peer-to-peer" from the revolutionary trustless peer to peer currency.

The order of operations in a lightning channel are as follows:

1. Create the parent (Funding Transaction)
2. Create the children (Commitment Transactions and all spends from the commitment transactions)
3. Sign the children
4. Exchange the signatures for the children
5. Sign the parent
6. Exchange the signatures for the parent
7. Broadcast the parent on the blockchain

What you're not getting is this is all cryptographically secured by handing each other the signature for each transaction. That makes them "real". It's up to you to enforce the penalty on them if they're trying to use the old version of the transaction. I don't know why you and
this guy acts like they're the only one's who can broadcast things to the block chain.

>Individuals don't broadcast to the blockchain

Anybody can broadcast to the blockchain.

Guys, join the Veeky Forums discord chat to discuss:

discord.gg/BkUZdWc

But they don't have to make real transactions. That is the thing I am saying.

They can but they won't. Because of the retarded fees right now.

>Anybody can broadcast to the blockchain.
for the low low fee of $200

>just broadcast to the blockchain in case anyone cheats you. only a $30 fee
Guess I'll repeatedly steal $29.99 from people then

I see what u did thar

You have the signed transaction you can broadcast that isn't "fake". They can't give you a fake signed transaction and go over to Bob and give him the same BTC's fractionally reserve because each channel with another participants require STEP 1 FUNDING TRANSACTION. Real BTC, they have to commit from the block chain that's tied up and they can't use anywhere else.

>They can but they won't. Because of the retarded fees right now.

Because nobody has adopted segwit and lightning yet. There will be less on chain transactions so lower fee market. And I would pay the $20 even with today's fees to get all of their funding transaction, that will be worth way more than the fee.

Nodes can't propagate fast enough once blocks are bigger than ~4-5MB. If the number of transactions quadrupled right now core would have to quadruple blocksize just to keep TX fees the same. They will still need segwit/lightning at some point.

Damn, Im Monero boat now

Over-simplified and suffering from Dunning Kruger effect.

>The lightning network functions like the gold reserve bank.

No, it's nothing like it. Although people with higher amounts of BTC can afford to connect to more people, those people still don't have to trust him. Can you punish your bank for not honoring agreements by taking their money as penalty?