Can someone answer these arguments about Bitcoin and lightning
20 sats \ 5 comments \ @BitBit 26 Nov 2023 bitcoin
If you want to use it non-custodial, you need a 100% uptime connection or risk losing all your funds. So already a non-starter. Opening/closing/changing balance needs an onchain transaction, so doesn’t really help with scaling. Channel management sucks, if you don’t have an income stream paid via lightning, you’ll have to constantly rebalance your channel, and you’re limited by others liquidity. If you are paid more than you spend eventually you have to rebalance as well. Since you need to do an onchain transaction to close, you might find it difficult to do so as you chain fees vary over time.
It stupidly tries to solve Bitcoin scaling, and is itself dependent on Bitcoin's scaling.
LN's own white paper admits that its claims of scaling up Bitcoin for global adoption only works on a fictional version of Bitcoin. One where Bitcoin's TPS is increased thousands of times first.
LN's own conclusion of a "solution" is that Bitcoin needs to scale itself up by orders of magnitude. lol
Bitcoin's TPS is so hilariously bad it is literally too slow just to use it once or twice to onboard the world into some half-baked layer 2 "solution." And by "too slow to use it," I mean there's only enough for every adult on earth to get 2 transactions on it in their entire lives. That is literal, not hyperbole.
write
preview
related posts
928 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 26 Nov 2023
Seems that you really didn't understand how LN works.
you need a 100% uptime connection or risk losing all your funds
No. You are wrong. I explained it in this guide about private LN nodes.
Opening/closing/changing balance needs an onchain transaction, so doesn’t really help with scaling.
Again wrong... You do not need to open/close channels all the time. The whole point is to keep those channels open as much is possible and use them. Through a LN channel of 1M sats for example you can pass through 1BTC or more... in and out. You open new channels when you see that the fees on mempool are pretty low...
If you are paid more than you spend eventually you have to rebalance as well.
Wrong again... Use the swap services, like I explained in these guides:
Bitcoin's TPS is so hilariously bad it is literally too slow just to use it once or twice to onboard the world into some half-baked layer 2 "solution."
Again wrong... watch this short video demo
And read this guide: https://darthcoin.substack.com/p/bitcoin-private-banks-over-lightning
reply
188 sats \ 1 reply \ @nikotsla 26 Nov 2023
I just want to add... "What are the alternatives?" right now this is orders of magnitude better that any other solution. Read @DarthCoin msg.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 26 Nov 2023
Just read OP history of posts... smells like a shitcoiner Bcasher... spreading FUD over LN. BCH literally hates LN.
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @xmrk2 26 Nov 2023
Well, presenting some of those arguments in 2023 is rather embarassing.
If you want to use it non-custodial, you need a 100% uptime connection or risk losing all your funds.
There are watchtowers. And the timeout for big channels (>10M sats I think) is about a week by default, so even if not using watchtower, it should be enough to bring your wallet online once a week, far from 100% uptime. And this is only needed if you receive by lightning. If you are only paying, your past balance is always greater or equal than your current balance, so your channel peer has nothing to gain by broadcasting the old channel state.
Opening/closing/changing balance needs an onchain transaction, so doesn’t really help with scaling.
But Lightning allows you to "compress" - you only need 2 onchain txs (opening and closing the channel) instead of N, where N can in principle be any number.
There are some true statements - if you receive on-chain, you have to spend on-chain. But how is this a problem of lightning? And if you are spending on-chain, you may instead open a channel for comparable cost.
Lightning doesn't solve everything, but it is a part of scaling. There are other ideas, like Ark and Enigma.
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @tomlaies 26 Nov 2023
Opening/closing/changing balance needs an onchain transaction, so doesn’t really help with scaling.
Makes no sense. Opening & closing channels are 2 transactions and you don't have to do the later. So only 1 transaction. Balancing works offchain two. And then you can do thousands, millions, endless transactions without going onchain. How isn't that scaling?
Channel management sucks, if you don’t have an income stream paid via lightning, you’ll have to constantly rebalance your channel, and you’re limited by others liquidity. If you are paid more than you spend eventually you have to rebalance as well.
All of that can be automated.
It stupidly tries to solve Bitcoin scaling, and is itself dependent on Bitcoin's scaling.
That's not an argument. Stop listening to people that communicate in "vibes" instead of hard facts. Opening a channel once and then making millions of transactions is scaling.
reply