The lightning network is a scam. Be warned

As soon as devs start memeing instead of delivering shit is about to tank
muh Wraith protocol
muh Segwit
muh Lightning network
muh FairX

>LN is centralization
It's NOT EVEN CENTRALIZED, it just can't work. Period.

BCH will also go down with BTC, all faith will be shaken.

>increasingly nervous cashcucks

The "LN" software that is out there is not beta release, nor alpha release (that is mostly complete but still too buggy for real use), nor a prototype, nor a proof-of-concept implementation. The concept has not been proved to work, because no one knows whether a suitable path-finding algorithm will ever be developed. Last time I checked, the code that they have released has no specific path-finding service. Instead, each user node finds the paths that it needs. In order to do so, each user node needs to know the capacity of all channels in the network, at least approximately. The capacity of a channel is the initial funding minus the net total payment made through it. Thus, every user node in the network must be promptly informed about every significant channel payment made anywhere in the network. If an LN payment needs n hops, those n channel payments must be promptly broadcast to the whole network. Obviously this solution scales worse than raw bitcon. In the latter, only the miners need to know about all transactions in the network. Simple clients need only check the chain of block headers (to make sure that they are getting a valid chain) and the part of the Merkle trees that contain payments to their wallets.

Moreover, the number of channel payments is the number of actual user-to-user payments mutiplied by the average payment path length. Some guys at BitFury have proposed an intermediate solution (FLARE). There about O(sqrt(N)) "beacons" (routing servers). Each beacon knows the topology of his "domain", a region of the network around the beacon, with O(sqrt(N)) users. The constant terms in the O() notation are chosen so that any two domains are very likely to have at least one user in common. So, when Alice needs to send a payment to Zoe, the two users contact their respective beacons BA,BZ. The beacons figure out that user Mike is in both domains. So BA return a path from Alice to Mike in its domain, and BZ returns a path from Mike to Zoe in its domain.

LN requires private side chains, no?

The two paths together are the desiired payment path. FLARE reduces the overall cost of the network since only the beacons need to know about channel capacities, and only of channels in their domain. Still, if Alice belongs to the domains of K beacons, she must promptly communicate every payment that she makes to those K beacons. Also, the paths found by FLARE will tend to be longer than those that would be found by a an omniscient router. It may happen that all the domains that include Alice are disjoint from all the domains that include Zoe, in which case FLARE fails.

If the resulting path does not work, because some of its middlemen is offline or refuses to cooperate, FLARE (like any other algorithm) may be unable to provide a second option that works. In FLARE, each user must trust that her beacon will not choose to block her payments, nor try to direct her payment through his cousins Mel, Ned, Oscar, and Pete, who overcharge for their service. Another alternative to FLARE is a single big hub and every user having just one channel to that hub. Then the hub automatically knows the state of every channel, and route finding is trivial...

>BCH will go down
Maybe in the short term, hopefully I can buy them up cheap.

ty for this; there is an abnormal amount of intelligence in this thread.

why did they want it to fail, explain yourself user!

Fortunately, confirmation times and fees for litecoin keep on falling. I think LTC IS the real lightening network here. I never transacy im BTC anymore. I jump in and out of LTC.

it's still early mate

what solution do you propose OP? there doesn't seem to be any choices

...

We need more of these threads, where actual discussions take places on crypto tech viability & future etc.. instead of pajeet shilling coins

>i dont like it
FUD!

I'm not selling a solution retard, I'm saying someone else is selling an impossible one

If you couldn't receive more than your Channel it would die in the middle of the transaction. That isn't the case. If C sends 5 to B and B only has 3 instead of 5 to send to you, how does 3+5 not >= 5?
The lightning network is to reduce congestion on the main net. You would just send main net unless there was a wallet application that managed to implement LN channels between two people, which is still entirely possible.

>Bcashies needing to FUD for fear their coin is worthless

He's right you know. The things in the OP are correct nonetheless.

Source?

...

>f you couldn't receive more than your Channel it would die in the middle of the transaction.
You're lying, that's a known problem with the LN, but it doesn't matter at all since that's the least of the problems it has, just read

So.. how does BCH keep transaction fees low?

Why does BTC have to complicate thigns, just raise the blocksize?

I'm a newb though, no fucking clue as to what all of this means. But BTC is making me increasingly nervous

Just go with SkyCoin ffs

The reason why fees are high in the first place is because in BTC people have to outbid each other to be in the next 1MB block.

BCH can include 8 times as many transactions and soon infinite amounts, that is why you can pretty much pay any fee you want and you will be included in the block.

Even Ethereum scales better than that crap.

>muh Wraith protocol
>muh Segwit
>muh Lightning network
>muh FairX

this tbqhfampai

Knowing that LN uses onion routing, what power does a centralized hub have over your transactions?

>onion routing automatically make things decentralized because I don't understand what onion routing does

Explain

I'm saying they are not aware of the sender and receiver, therefore cannot censor any particular transactions.

The worst a hub can do is block all transactions.

lightning-wallet.com/using-lightning-wallet#receiving-lightning-funds
i'm using a testnet wallet on android and can't receive anything right now but sending is really easy

explain what? bcash solution is to increase block sizes. its very straight forward and a short term solution

BCH just lazily removes the block size limit, which is like sticking a band-aid on a wound that needs stitches. Eventually the blocksize is going to get really unweildy in BCH.
Its a cash grab by its creators.

I don't understand, are the sleeves sewed on or is she wearing another shirt under the black and white one? It looks like the blue/green one is another shirt underneath, but the red one looks like it's on top somehow

Who dat?

Transactions still have to be validated and addresses can be censored despite knowing sender receiver origins.

Lets pretend that block size is only a short term solution. Why not do it anyway? Oh that's right, large block size run counter to Blockstream's business plan to monetize side chains.

He referenced to SkyCoin not scaling and I asked him to explain, next time please read within context, yes? thank you.

ty for this

Are you really that stupid?!?!?!?! The negotiation itself is still unsolvable, that's why all of that doesn't matter. There will never be a LN, you won't get to the point where all that fake decentralization discussion matters. You first have to calculate the routes, and they didn't even solve that, NOT EVE IN THEORY.

That's because it's a tiny cenralized network which DOES ALL THE ROUTING FOR YOU. That's not a LN, that's a fake. It doesn't even resemble what it's supposed to do.

WTF does it have to do with BCH?

> Eventually the blocksize is going to get really unweildy in BCH.
Look up sharding.

>Its a cash grab by its creators.

How can it be a cash grab? THat doesn't make sense, there was no premine and every BTC owener received the same amount in BCH. It's probably less of a cash grab than most cryptos.

I was referring to his argument about centralization, I didn't read your enormous rant.

Core probably *should* increase block size to at least 2mb, considering thats not at all excessive, but the devs are obsessed with other solutions. On the other hand, Roger Ver and co pretending that they've 'fixed' Bitcoin is a scam, since all they've done is kick the can to create bigger problems down the road.

Sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about. Devs have tested 1GB blocks already and they can be achieved with today's hardware.

try hard fud

Larger block sizes are a solution. Stop letting propaganda get to you, user. Core can't increase block size, first it would require consensus which they won't get and second it would completely out them as being frauds for putting (((Blockstreams))) interests of monetizing sidechains over users. Seriously ask yourself, if Core increases block size, what does that say about BCH?

You could get far bigger blocks effectively using sharding.

how is it not a lightning network?

They can't increase the blocksize easily with segwit, which is part of the reason why they implemented it in the first place. Other reason was to ensure it'll be hard for another team to replacing them.

>Seriously ask yourself, if Core increases block size, what does that say about BCH?

Only that band-aids can have short term benefits.

Again, even if it is short term fix which we've already demonstrated to you multiple times in this thread that it is not. Why the fuck haven't the done it already to increase throughput?

Holy mother of god.... to sum it up: because it doesn't scale even in a CENTRALIZED way. They chose a solution knowing very well will never work.

>we've already demonstrated to you multiple times in this thread that it is not
Have you now?
Buy more hard drives, lol.

It's not a short term solution, it's a solution that can easily reach Paypal levels of adoption. Blockstream is spreading mass misinformation. They want people to use BTC through their sidechains so they can make money.

no one is forcing you to use it, faggot

Good god, soygoi. You're just choosing to ignore everything in this thread, so maybe a video will make it easier for you to understanding scale and the cost in doing so.

youtube.com/watch?v=sbD0kiTddEs

>34% dominance

The market is already deciding not to.

At intervals, the following process is initiated:

A beacon node B is selected via a pseudo-random process.
Neighbors of B broadcast their shortest route to B to their neighbors.
The neighbors of neighbors of B now become aware of a route to B and in turn broadcast their shortest route to B.
This cascades through the network until every reachable node has broadcasted their shortest route to the beacon node B.
Whenever a node becomes aware of a new shorter route, it broadcasts this updated shortest route as well.
After a short wait, start from top with a new beacon node B1.
Nodes remember their shortest routes to a number of previously selected beacon node.

Now, Alice wants to send 0.3BTC to Bob.
Alice has shortest routes to B, B1, and B2. Bob just came online and only knows B2. They add together their respective paths to B2 and thus find a path:

Alice → N1 → N2 → B2 ← N3 ← Bob
If they have multiple common beacons, they can also compare different paths, and check whether any earlier nodes in their routes match. If they instead had found:

Alice → N1 → N2 → B2 ← N2 ← Bob
They could shorten the route to:

Alice → N1 → N2 ← Bob
Altogether, "shortest" would be some combination of reachable, sufficient liquidity, lowest fee, fewest hops, and most reliable. As Hash Time Lock Contracts are nearly trustless (only potentially locking your money for some time), and operating a routing wallet should have low resource requirements, it seems likely that the payment routing market should achieve a healthy competition, therefore discouraging nodes to lock money by establishing channels just to earn fees from routing. Payment channels between nodes that have some form of regular business relationship seem more likely as there is an immediate benefit.

that known shit propaganda paid by ver, you've been hoodwinked shitlord. It's just starting you're fucked. LOL

Wonderfully constructed argument and market analysis.

OK then, go buy BTC.
Bye.

theres one thing i dont get. Nobody uses btc other than speculating on price. Its used to trade other meme coins. Prove me wrong (protip: you can't)

>buy bitcoin.com
>control bitcoin leddit
>control bitcoin twitter
>see, we are the real bitcoin!
>this random rich guy is actually Satoshi and he supports us!
>lol dont notice that we control 80% of the bch mining
>please buy our bags

Who is spreading misinformation?

I used Bitcoin to regularly purchase items from Newegg. I don't anymore because of fees. I will begin to buy from them after Bitpay has Bitcoin Cash fully implemented.

However for the most part you are correct, which is why BCH desperately needs pairs.

What is said in the video is completely true, if you actually had any understanding of how Bitcoin works you would get it.

the idea that you can only use an LN channel to transact with a small number of 'certain people' is incorrect. You can transact with anyone else connected to the network.
the idea that on-chain fees (i.e. to open/close LN channels) will remain at the current ridiculous levels is an unreasonable assumption that ignores all the scaling currently in progress to combat that very problem
the idea that channels would be regularly opened/closed is incorrect - most people would keep their channel(s) open indefinitely
There is no 'locking up'. This is FUD spread by those who don't like LN as a scaling solution.

If you take money out of your bank account and put it in your wallet, would you consider that 'locking it up'? No, you're actually making your money more usable.

With BTC in a wallet, you can make payments via the blockchain (slow, requires non-neglible fees, requires confirmations, not very private). With BTC in LN, you can make cheap, instant, more private payments to anyone on the LN network (which, at least theoretically, will be anyone with bitcoin).

If for some reason you need your BTC back in a standard wallet, you just transfer it back with a regular bitcoin transaction. You'd only really need to send money back to a regular wallet for saving/storage, so waiting for an on-chain transfer is never going to be a concern. The only other scenario for wanting to move money back to a wallet if to then make an on-chain payment with the funds...which is an odd edge case, as it would almost always make more sense to make the payment via LN.

Forgot to mention

>straight up copy the tech and slap on a band-aid

None of those entities have changed hands ever, so you're argument is invalid. The people mining Core are the same mining Cash.

1) You don't have to open a channel with everyone in town. Just a few channels might be sufficient. This is the "network" part of the "lightning network", if you want to pay someone, but don't have a direct channel with them, you can send the payment through one of your existing channels, which will forward the payment hopping through other people's channels until it reaches its destination. (ex: You have a channel with Alice, you want to pay Bob, but you do not have a channel with Bob. However Alice & Bob are connected, so you send the payment to Alice, and ask her to forward it to Bob on your behalf). Best of all, this happens in a trustless and non-custodial manner, i.e. intermediate nodes cannot steal the in-transit payment (thanks to a cryptographic contract called the "Hashed Time-Lock Contract").

Also, you do not need to fill a channel with everything you expect to spend, because you can refill the channel through the network. Example: You open a $20 channel with Starbucks, you spend everything. Then let's say someone pays you through Lightning for some small service, their payment can arrive through your Starbucks channel which will now be refilled. Sweet, more coffee! (or something else, you don't necessarily have to use that channel only to pay Starbucks)

>copy
>open source project

Just fucking leave, you stupid faggot.

2) No need to close a channel to spend coins in it. If Starbucks wants to spend the coins they received from your channel, they can pay someone else using you as a router. (ex: they refill your channel, and in exchange you use some other channel of yours to route their payment to someone of their choice). The only reason to close a channel is if the other party become unresponsive, which hopefully would be infrequent enough to not be a huge problem.

Even in that case, in the future we will have "channel factories" which are a way to open/close payment channels off-chain, which will further optimize and reduce the costs of the whole process, dramatically reducing the need to pay miner fees.

It's obvious we need second layer solutions like lightning network( which needs segwit to run well). There is no way in a million years it'll scale onchain. Bitcoin will work without 2nd layer solutions, but the 'cash' component will come with that adoption.

Blockstream is controlling Bitcoin Leddit and Bitcointalk actually.

And the reason why BCH was created in the first place because of mass misinformation. The original devs such as Gavin and Mike wanted to scale Bitcoin with Satoshi's solution, they created the Bitcoin XT implementation but were kicked out. Everyone who supported them was banned. Same happened with Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited.

Blockstream/Core literally hijacked the project and banned everyone who disagreed with them. This is why it seems like people love BTC even though it's completely worthless.

Roger Ver's confusion -- along with many who agree with him -- is that he thinks of the blockchain as an efficient payment network. It's not. Just look at the electricity expenses that are going into making transactions on the blockchain possible. Right now the network is consuming as much energy as the country Ireland? All that energy is not being spent on making transactions cheap or fast -- additional mining power has a negligible affect on the speed of bitcoin as the protocol always seeks to maintain 10 minute confirmation times, and additional mining power has a negligible affect on the price of fees as that is determined most principally by the fact that there is a limited supply of block space.

No. That energy is being spent entirely on securing the network. The blockchain is about security first, not cheap payments. Cheap payments will come with Lightning and other such payment networks, but the purpose of the blockchain is first and foremost about securing a global public ledger.

What you want is the security layer to be secure, and the payment layer to be fast and cheap. The two combined (along with so much more) is what will eventually be considered Bitcoin (much like people ceased to differentiate the internet from the web). What you don't want is to try to use the security layer as the payment network so that it isn't secure. And since the blockchain, the security layer as it were, isn't particularly fast or cheap, any network that attempts to use the blockchain as a payment network to compete with networks specifically designed to be payment networks, like Lightning, will in the long run fail.

We know how LN works you dumb nigger.

OP I Just want to thank you for your analysis

thing is you don't, your fucking idiot's huffing ver's fart box.

Shit FUD

Lightning can not work as designed. The routing algorithm needed to efficiently settle multi link payment channels doesn't exist. It requires total knowledge of the entire channel network to implement instant payments on lightning.

For a world currency that functions correctly the energy consumption is not that big of a deal, look at all the data centers and banks and how much money and electricity they eat.

Also Bitcoin itself is faster and cheaper than the LN because it has only one hop and can potentially confirm millions of transactions per second. What you are thinking of is the confirmation time which is negligible for most payments.

what is your definition of scalable?

What you want is the security layer to be secure, and the payment layer to be fast and cheap. The two combined (along with so much more) is what will eventually be considered Bitcoin (much like people ceased to differentiate the internet from the web). What you don't want is to try to use the security layer as the payment network so that it isn't secure. And since the blockchain, the security layer as it were, isn't particularly fast or cheap, any network that attempts to use the blockchain as a payment network to compete with networks specifically designed to be payment networks, like Lightning, will in the long run fail.

It's really simple, people who can't do the math and realize on chain fees can be amortized will create a centralized ponzi scheme that can be censored, shut down, and have payments blocked/frozen/money seized because they have no grasp of reality. Anytime a node is 'in a data center' you're handing over the FUCKING CREDIBILITY.

You do realize thats why BTC was created was because the MONEY SUPPLY was being manipulated right? If you can't validate the money supply(node), then BCH or a protocol with large blocks can be perverted and used against the poor and downtrodden IDENTICALLY to the way fiat is.

I don't know how many times people will just choose to not look at how block size increase is a throughout increase and nothing to do with scaling. Literally, it will do jack fucking shit to raise it to 8mb.. I’d love to see the BCH network with our volume but it will never happen because it’s a joke and a clear sign that the devs aren’t CS centric for BCH. You've been hoodwinked to sign up to a centralized coin that can be changed whenever necessary.

You have to be autistic to think that bigger blocks solves scaling long term. Go back to school user.

> Mentions Daikatana and Duke Forever

Checking them trips.

Listen to this man. He is a seasoned veteran with decades of experience. He has seen things.

>payment layer

No faggot, that's why we made crypto. To get rid of (((payment layers))).

Haha. Very similar to why the Internet failed when routers stopped being able to store the whole network?

doesn't it basically make it impossible for normal people to download the blockchain because it will get so large?

won't work you're a mongoloid that doesn't understand scaling. Have you special ed teacher help you understand.

>the Internet failed when routers stopped being able to store the whole network?
wat

Scaling works just fine, you're literally choosing not to look into this yourself.

>What you don't want is to try to use the security layer as the payment network so that it isn't secure.

You have no fucking idea what Bitcoin even is. The blockchain is faster and cheaper than the LN, unless you artificially cripple it.

Also the LN will never work with 1MB blocks, just opening channels is gonna be way too expensive.

>I don't know how many times people will just choose to not look at how block size increase is a throughout increase and nothing to do with scaling. Literally, it will do jack fucking shit to raise it to 8mb

Holy shit you are a brainlet. BCH literally cleared a 100MB mempool a couple days ago extremely fast. BTC hasn't done anything like that ever.

Bitcoin's blockchain was never intended to be stored on everyone's PC.

Big blockers think it's fine to be adding TB's worth of data to the blockchain per year. There's no way that will lead to centralization... rrrrrrright user?