1235 sats \ 14 replies \ @demitasse 9 Dec 2022 \ on: Someone brave enough to ask tough questions bitcoin
I wouldn't say lightning has failed but the incentives definitely are very different from onchain bitcoin and tend towards centralization and custodial models.
The only people incentivized to run a node are businesses which leads to a hub and spoke model of major nodes ran by businesses like bitfinex, bitrefill, wallet of satoshi, muun, etc.
Person run small nodes don't have the liquidity and the people running them don't have the expertise to properly manage channels, rebalance, etc. Which is a huge hassle for someone who just wants to buy a coffee.
Bitcoiners need to be honest about this, instead of sticking their heads in the sand and shouting down anyone who points this out. For a normal user who won't even go through the trouble of doing a coinjoin to acheive a basic level of privacy, thinking they will run their own lightning node is complete fantasy land.
They will always use custodial lightning wallets like wallet of satoshi or bitcoin beach, and custodial means aml/kyc, which means government surveillance and blacklisted wallets/addresses. So far there is no solution which prioritizes self sovereignty or similar decentralized and permissionless incentives like the base chain.
The only people incentivized to run a node are businesses which leads to a hub and spoke model of major nodes ran by businesses like bitfinex, bitrefill, wallet of satoshi, muun, etc.
Person run small nodes don't have the liquidity and the people running them don't have the expertise to properly manage channels, rebalance, etc. Which is a huge hassle for someone who just wants to buy a coffee.
Bitcoiners need to be honest about this, instead of sticking their heads in the sand and shouting down anyone who points this out. For a normal user who won't even go through the trouble of doing a coinjoin to acheive a basic level of privacy, thinking they will run their own lightning node is complete fantasy land.
This perspective (specifically the first paragraph) was extremely common as an argument against LN around the time it was first being introduced (2017-18). Here's what I think is a fundamental error embedded in this way of thinking:
A common complaint, from outsiders, about Bitcoin itself is 'well I can't verify the code! So it's effectively controlled by a tiny group of Core devs'. The nuance is this: even if only a few thousand people can fully vet and audit the code, the numbers are high enough and distributed enough that someone is definitely going to catch malicious changes. This is the dynamic of open source: anyone can contribute and review and test, even if of course most people don't.
It's linked to bitcoin's own architecture: nodes can leave and join at will. The dynamic created by this openness is what counts, not the specific set of contributors/nodes/coders that exist today.
By the same token, in Lightning, of course hubs will spring up, there will be pockets of centralization here and there - but new nodes can spring up any time to route around those hubs. And this argument is critically dependent on how easy it is to spin up Lightning nodes for at least a subset of users - and indeed, it really is easy, and it only gets easier every year. Even people on phones have very easy to use non-custodial options (example: Phoenix) so the situation is even better than the 'start-a-node-optionality' that I describe.
So in that sense LN is even better than 'fully distributed/decentralized' - it's instead completely open - you cannot stop any set of people choosing a pure hub and spoke model for their dealings, and you cannot stop the exact opposite, either.
reply
I agree. Node centralization is not a problem, because small nodes won't ever die, and their existence will always counter-act the censorship of hubs. For end users, auto-pilot will work just fine for managing channels. 'Running a node' should stand for 'running a profitable routing node' - that's not trivial (but easy enough for an average developer, whom there are millions), and end users - shouldn't route. They should use non-custodial wallet with a proper auto-pilot.
We are at the very beginning of LN, and so much progress is ahead, it makes not much sense to assume that current limitations are forever.
reply
This is why I asked this question about mobile wallets the other day: #103728
Normal users can and do run their own Lightning nodes on mobile, today.
They can set them up, open channels and buy a coffee quicker than opening any fiat bank account.
Many of them probably don’t even realise they’re running a node.
reply
While being non-custodial, these mobile phone lightning nodes do not provide the infastructure for routing and will probably always rely on centralized lightning service providers. And these could be easy to regulate.
reply
Being a routing node or not does not matter whatsoever and it makes no sense for a mobile node to also route payments.
With some wallets like Blixt, Breez and OBW, you do not rely on centralized lightning service providers. You can open a channel to whatever node you want to.
In practice you would want to find a good and well connected node, which there are plenty of. But you don't have to. You can connect to some obscure one to stay low profile.
reply
You cannot open a channel to whatever node you want to and expect your wallet to work reliably when your node is offline most of the time or for a longer period of time.
But the longer I think about it, the more it seems like a matter of charging some extra fees for mobile peers and not so much about regulation for lightning service providers.
reply
You cannot open a channel to whatever node you want to and expect your wallet to work reliably when your node is offline most of the time or for a longer period of time.
So then you will have to choose whether you want reliability or not.
My point was that you have the option. You cannot have it all.
But the longer I think about it, the more it seems like a matter of charging some extra fees for mobile peers and not so much about regulation for lightning service providers.
I think regulation for wallet developers and LSPs is a real concern. But it cannot destroy Lightning, because you can always to connect permissionlessly to other peers.
It might make Lightning suck though.
reply
And these could be easy to regulate
That's bullshit. Regulate for what? Nobody can "regulate" what am I doing with my own bits and tits through my node. I can run multiple nodes anytime I want and I don't give a shit about any regulation or government.
Why people cry for bullshit regulation?
Why people like to obey like sheeps?
Who the fuck is this "government" that want to regulate my life?
I am sick and tired of all this cronic statism.
reply
Yes, it certainly works today. I’m a daily user and enjoy the experience. My concern is that we stop here when I think if we look forward 100 years it becomes unworkable. If I’m making 1mil sats/year (and it declines yearly due to deflation) opening a channel with the 300,000 sats I’ve saved at an on chain cost of my life savings would be untenable. I don’t think we can sit on LN and call it a day. Maybe L3/L4 technology gets there but I appreciate the public discourse without the public hanging of someone saying “This has issues long term.” SN seems to be a better place for that then Twitter. Your self-sovereignty concern I also share. How does a company pay employees and do accounting and tax work without demanding zpubs? It’s difficult to find a job now if you are unbanked and can’t do direct deposit. Do we have to make bips that make privacy features a requirement or do we do a public push to prevent government from creeping into my transactions? I think one is easier than the other.
reply
if bitcoin goes to 100% adoption then idont think 1M sats will be anyone's salary.
reply
reply
How does a company pay employees and do accounting and tax work without demanding zpubs?
But why have to pay taxes anyways?
Taxation is theft in any form or shape.
reply
every phoenix, breez, blixt, electrum, etc wallet, is running a lightning node. check facts before commenting please.
reply
I agree with your points, but I just want to add a couple of subtleties:
- Even though I agree that there is a trend to big, enterprise-grade nodes, the cool thing is ANYONE can "easily" (not common-mortal easily, but at least power-user with a $500 dollars budget easy) spin-up a node that can integrate itself on the network on an equal level to those nodes. This means that, if the few big nodes do anything stupid, there is an open door to a balancing counter-reaction of plebs sticking the finger and taking action.
- Fedimint could bring a landscape of uncle-jim-on-steroids, where hundreds or thousands of fedimint federations exist and regular users happily use them, promoting an environment of healthy, competitive and private custodian-ship.
reply