/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.25568223]

Explain why 7 transactions per second is worth anything. When everything is forced off-chain, there is literally no difference to traditional banking cartels. Idea was to replace banks and other such intermediaries. Please read the Animal Farm by Orwell. This sham is doomed to fail.

[Anonymous No.25568306]

>>25568223
Bump

[Anonymous No.25569258]

Only way to mitigate *fundamental vulnerabilities* unless timelocks are shortened, loops are avoided and route hops are kept few as possible, which will only lead to large payment hubs, also known as traditional banks.

>In a new paper we discuss a fundamental vulnerability that arises in payment channel networks as part of the construction of trustless multi-hop payments. We present two modes of attack: the first aims to lock as many high liquidity channels as possible for an extended period, and the second isolates hubs from the rest of the network. In this post, we present the evaluation of these attacks over the Lightning Network. We will examine the network’s properties and different parameters set by the three main implementations of the Lightning Network and show how recent changes in default parameters agreed upon by Lightning Devs made the attack easier to carry out. Our results show that it is possible to disrupt the Lightning Network by locking most of its liquidity using less than half a bitcoin.

>The basic idea of the attack we explore was mentioned back in August 2015 in a correspondence in the Lightning-dev list and in May 2017 as a git issue in the BOLT. No full evaluation of the consequences of this attack was ever given and its costs turn out to be extremely low: with less than half a bitcoin, the attacker can indefinitely lock up most of the network’s channels.

>Our results show that the attacker can paralyze 650 BTC of liquidity in the Lightning Network for 3 days using less than 0.25 BTC.

[Anonymous No.25569315]

>We report on an experiment that attempted to connect to nodes on the network and show that a large majority (95%) of responding nodes agree to form such connections (other nodes refuse for often benign reasons, such as in-progress synching with the blockchain). We conclude that it is therefore easy for the attacker to find enough victims to perform a wide-scale attack. Since nodes are able to open more than one channel with each peer, attackers are able to steal more funds from each such victim.

>We see that most nodes have a very low degree and are extremely easy to isolate. Even nodes with high degree, require far fewer channels than the degree to attack.

[Anonymous No.25569330]

>Please read the Animal Farm by Orwell
Oh my fucking god dude

[Anonymous No.25569564]

>>25569330
How does this differ from traditional system? You are the pigs trying to become the farmer. Never going to happen brother.

[Anonymous No.25569823]

>>25569564
What's Animal Farm about?

[Anonymous No.25569909]

>>25568223
it's too soon to increase blocks
when everyone have 1 tb/s fiber and 100 tb storage for cheap, increasing block size will come naturally, centralized speed advantage won't even matter in this case, wanting extreme speed will be very niche

[Anonymous No.25570206]

>>25569823
Orwell's message is this: Malicious groups of people, like the pigs, will continue to use propaganda to usurp power, to exploit the vulnerable, and to control the masses, unless courageous individuals spread the truth and stand up for those who cannot fight for themselves.

>>25569909
Oh wow, so by everyone you mean 7 billion people?

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

[Anonymous No.25570784]

>>25570206
what does it has to do with blocks size? every user is a network node? lol go read the wiki

[Anonymous No.25570969]

[Anonymous No.25571030]

>>25570969
why do normie graphs always make everything needlessly complicated

[Anonymous No.25571101]

>>25571030
because retards love complexity that's how you recognize them

[Anonymous No.25571124]

>>25569823
Stalin

[Anonymous No.25571180]

>>25568223
Problem with bcash brainlets is that you don't think there are tradeoffs with your method of scaling.

Nobody disputes that there are tradeoffs made for lightning, but these tradeoffs are worth it for low value transactions.

The only way you can scale a blockchain is by making tradeoffs somewhere. Bcashers prefer to sacrifice the essential foundation of the coin, ensuring they will never generate enough fees to survive long term and will require adding inflation to the coin. Bitcoiners prefer to try scaling as much as possible in other ways before starting to make tradeoffs at the foundation

[Anonymous No.25571381]

>>25568223
How does bcash survive another halving with only $1 in transaction fees per block? Seriously, nobody ever answers this question. Your entire network is at critical risk right now and 90% of the inflation will be gone by the end of this year. You will be required to fork in inflation past the 21 million to survive. You already have a pathetic hash rate below 1% of the total network hash

Why would anybody use an inflating bcash, when they can choose a set of tradeoffs on layer 2 and use a network with superior monetary properties and a rock solid foundation?

The entire philosophy behind bcash is doomed from the start

[Anonymous No.25571666]

>>25570784
Link or quote your source.
You claim that every user *needs* be a network node, but then every users can't even access the network themself. Idea was to bypass intermediaries.

[Anonymous No.25571951]

>>25571180
>sacrifice the essential foundation
This is what you did.

>tradeoffs are worth it for low value transactions
Worth it to be in same situation before Bitcoin existed?

[Anonymous No.25572015]

>>25571666
I don't claim that, you're the one who brought network node in the discussion out of nowhere, maybe you have a passion for network nodes

[Anonymous No.25572122]

>>25571666
This is very simple, not sure why its so hard to understand.

If the blocks are too big, it is extremely difficult to actually validate the whole thing in 10 minutes. This is already the case even with consumer hardware when you push up to 20mb blocks, so what ends up happening is that miners can basically do whatever they want in the chain. If a large portion of the economic activity isn't validating, they can't even detect these shenanigans in the first place and reject the blocks. You basically hand over complete control to miners without any check or balance on the system. The UASF was proof that miners don't control the network, users do

The ENTIRE POINT of a blockchain is to be able to audit it. Without audit capability there is no point to the entire design of the system, you might as well just use a spreadsheet maintained by a centralized third party. If you try to send me fake Bitcoin then I will immediately know. If you try to send fake bcash with 1gb blocks, then I have to trust someone else to tell me whether I got real bcash or not.

[Anonymous No.25572163]

>>25571951
How did Bitcoin sacrifice the foundation? We already know we need fees to survive. Your chain generates 1 dollar a block. How do you survive at that rate?

[Anonymous No.25572181]

>>25568223
You are replacing banks. Coin holders are the bank. That's why you HODL.

[Anonymous No.25572213]

>>25571381
>How do you survive another halving with low transaction fees per block?
They will generate more from large number of cheap transactions than few expensive ones. Users will always prefer substitute goods if you charge them too much for any practical usage. Nobody will want to be reliant on intermediaries when there is no real need for that.

[Anonymous No.25572325]

>>25572213
How you progressing on that "adoption"? You really think you're still going to exist 5 years from now?
Way more likely your hash drops below 0.1% of total hash power and miners continue to leave your chain

[Anonymous No.25572367]

Jesus would you retards stop with the WE NEED TO REPLACE THE BANKS THAT'S WHAT CRYPTO DOES!!!!

If you think that is the only value of crypto then you should just fucking kill yourself because you're not gonna make it.

[Anonymous No.25572628]

>>25572213
Another dumb thing you just said about relying on intermediaries in lightning but not acknowledging how you rely on them for your entire network!

In lightning we deliberately choose to make a tradeoff for low value transactions. You don't send a wire transfer for coffee. But if you send me a large amount on chain, or I'm securing my life savings, I don't have to rely on anybody at all because I can check for myself whether that Bitcoin is real.

You need to rely on a node infrastructure provider, basically like Infura but for bcash. You can't even check for yourself if your life savings is even real

[Anonymous No.25572801]

>>25572628
This. Based maxipad explaining to a brainlet how it really is. Baffling there are people THAT stupid.
Also
etleneum.com
Saged