Lightning Network Redpill Thread

[Anonymous No.10657957]

Alright I am behind the loop in Lightning Network.

Both core and cash supporters please post intelligent comments about each. Non-technical articles are also very welcome (I can't code, but can understand plain technical English and have good crypto vocab).

I just really want to learn about the LN, positives, negatives, and would prefer not to deal with nonsense. Can we keep it serious for once?

[Anonymous No.10658006]

>>10657957
tldr; Bcash sucks dick and plan to scale through infinite blocksize increases. Bitcoin plans to scale through having off-chain transactions for those who want instant transactions, and on-chain for those who can wait, both chains will be dirt cheap. Bitcoin plans to increase the blocksize to 2mb, but first people need to adopt lightning network otherwise there would be no need for anyone to adopt lightning network for several years until the bottleneck is hit again. Increasing the blocksize infinitely is not a permanent scaling solution, that's some bcashies don't realize.

[Anonymous No.10658015]

Even if it works, lightning still abandons and breaks the intrinsics and economics of Bitcoin. It will just become a clogged up, vulnerable science project.

Global money can only happen on the first layer, with heavy volume, non stop. The second layer only hurts it. Never helps.

Users of bit coin aren't the people running the show. Its miners and Devs, but mostly miners. Weak minded normies can not secure shit.

[Anonymous No.10658028]

Nobody cares since most people hold BTC on the exchanges where they bought it waiting to dump.

[Anonymous No.10658110]

>>10658015
This tbqh lad.

The Lightning Network is a completely unproven second layer solution to a problem that can be solved using a proven solution with no drawbacks despite the bullshit "muh centralization" narrative that his been spun by the economically illiterate neckbeard brigade.
The problems with the LN are almost too numerous to discuss in a single thread:
- No way to onboard every user on Earth without clogging up the underlying chain for decades.
- Devolution of network topology to highly vulnerable hub and spoke model
- Poor capacity
- No solution to the routing problem
- Vulnerability to state attack due to money transmission laws, etc.
The list goes on and on, I'm sure some other anons in the know will chime in

[Anonymous No.10658195]

>>10658015
>>10658110
How would ya'll respond to the criticism that repeatedly increasing the Bitcoin Cash block size will be unsustainable if it were to be adopted as a global currency? Assuming hundreds of billions of transactions a day, blocks would have to be very large, right?

[Anonymous No.10658324]

Okay senpai, newbie question here.
From what I understand so far, LN plans to add another layer to the blockhain for scaling transaction where one kept the transaction details off-chain and then broadcast it on-chain for verification, which sounds a lot like lag to me.
What im wondering about is there no alternative to LN beside bcash? because if I want bcash system i'd just use fiat instead. and from my point of view LN seems very slow despite the name and from what I understand the current bitcoin transaction system scales with bitcoin price which is not good imo.
So are there really no alternative to scale bitcoin beside LN and *spit*bcash?

[Anonymous No.10658330]

>>10658195
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reveals-gigablock-testnet-performance/

Look, nobody is saying that there should not be or there will not be tons of off-chain transactions eventually, just that artificially limiting the blocksize by central planning is a serious mistake at this critical period in bitcoin's development, particularly given that there is no good technical or economic reason to restrict the blocksize to 1MB, regardless of what the core party line tells you.
As a base money PROTOCOL bitcoin must be flexible and accommodating enough to allow enterprising devs to build on top of it without having to ask a grand council of neckbeards for permission.
Case in point, Vitalik originally wanted to develop Ethereum on top of Bitcoin, but was rebuffed by the core devs. Let that sink in: Ethereum would have been part of the Bitcoin ecosystem, making Bitcoin more valuable, if there had just been more wiggle room for people like Vitalik to innovate.

[Anonymous No.10658359]

>>10658324
Jesus christ look at these people who barely understand how any of this shit works yet swallow the "Muh Bcash" propoganda hook line and sinker. Serious investors take note. Moments like these in history where you have the opportunity to extract value from information dislocations are not that common. This is like a second chance at buying bitcoin in 2012 for anyone that is paying attention.

[Anonymous No.10658398]

>>10657957
>Decentralization
>Scalability
>Security

Pick two.

That's more or less the issue. Bitcoin is (relatively) highly decentralized and secure, but on chain it scales like ass. So lightning attempts to be a second layer solution for off chain transactions. It (kind of) brings scalability while not compromising on chain transactions in exchange of a bit of decentralization and security, allegedly after the foreseeable future it could prove itself good enough on those other two fronts. If it can manage that, it's going to need to convince a lot of people. I don't think it can stick longterm but I believe second layer solutions are the way to go for scalability, but in the end you're going to have to compromise something for that.

Now, let's get into the BTC vs BCH thing.
BTC side (mostly) bets on Store of Value -> Medium of Exchange
BCH side (mostly) bets on Medium of Exchange -> Store of Value

I thought this was pretty decent as an overview of BTC
https://medium.com/@nic__carter/visions-of-bitcoin-4b7b7cbcd24c
Don't treat it as gospel, but maybe an almond activator. It's possible to do something like this for BCH until the fork and then keep going treating it as an incompatible implementation.

[Anonymous No.10658585]

>>10658359
I admit I barely understand what is going on with bcore vs bcash right now, but something on how bcash works just did not sit well with me, also on the latest fud going around that
bitmain is opening ipo, jihan wu holding the biggest bcash bag and how the LN works all of it did not sit well with me and I cant explain why.
even if im not an expert at techical things I understand that technology will catch up as long as crypto is on demand.
also I just read your post after I posted mine, and I think I can get some gist of it, I just got into crypto this year so there are much to digest, and I will keep an eye out on bcas
h senpai.

[Anonymous No.10658668]

>>10658585
>the latest fud going around that
>bitmain is opening ipo, jihan wu holding the biggest bcash bag and how the LN works all of it did not sit well with me and I cant explain why.
Well at least you're intellectually honest and provide some insight into how the propaganda works at some level.

Read: https://archive.fo/gu2LS

Then, read: https://hackernoon.com/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-debate-a-timeline-6108081dbada

You've got a lot of catching up to do, but you just might make it, anon-kun. Godspeed.

[Anonymous No.10659092]

It's in beta with channels limited to something like 0.14 btc. Way too early to say anything.
Plus this thing needs schnorr sigs and aggregation to make closing channels more efficient. It's a 1-2 year project.

[Anonymous No.10659122]

>>10658330
>artificially limiting the
>blocksize by central planning is a serious mistake at this critical period in bitcoin's development
So that's what I'm confused about. Don't the miners control the block size? What makes staying as 1mb "centrally planned" when 8mb is not centrally planned? Can't BTC miners, right now, decide to fork to 2 or 4 or 8mb blocks?

You mention that 2nd layer solutions will be needed for BCH as well in the future (I assume nobody is claiming that the blockchain should grow to absurd levels to make EVERYTHING on chain for a global currency). Are you more critical of the LN for technical reasons or are you more critical of the decision to develop LN BEFORE increasing the block size?

[Anonymous No.10659141]

>>10658668
Jesus Christ. You actually make me sick. Like, real woozy. I know i shouldn't judge people living in Mumbai or whatever for wanting to make some money to feed their several in-laws, but you're probably some fat teenage burger.

[Anonymous No.10659142]

>>10659092
Or just use NANO, it's available now and all level 1.

[Anonymous No.10659146]

>>10659122
Bcash morons don't understand that neither Miners nor devs decide the protocol. Users do as proven with the success of UASF (opposed by miners and devs, supported by users) and the fail of Segwith2x (opposed by the users and devs, supported by miners).

[Anonymous No.10659156]

>>10659142
Kys, bagholder.

[Anonymous No.10659263]

>>10658668
Fucking hell senpai, that is a fucking heavy read.
will plan accordingly, hopefully my gut feeling is wrong.

[Anonymous No.10659275]

>>10659122
see >>10658644

[Anonymous No.10659285]

Are there any scenarios where bitcoin cash takes the name bitcoin? That's literally all that matters in this debate.