1 sat \ 16 replies \ @shyfire OP 12 Sep 2022 \ parent \ on: Lightning network centralization metrics bitcoin
I recently paid $0.03 to open a channel. If that's prohibitive, then yeah, LN is probably not the right payment tool for you.
The fee will increase dramaticially as more users join the network. I hope 1MB every 10 mins is enough for constantly opening and closing enough LN channel for everyone in the world to use bitcoin.
Will everyone in the world run their own lightning node? The more likely outcome is: either that everyone uses bitcoin custodially or bitcoin just never catches on and dies.
reply
How can you make so many wrong assumptions?
The fee will increase dramaticially as more users join the network.
Wrong. Bitcoin has much more users now than 5 years ago, fees are much lower. Stop predicting the future if you keep ignoring the past.
I hope 1MB every 10 mins is enough for constantly opening and closing enough LN channel for everyone in the world to use bitcoin.
Wrong. Bitcoin blogs aren't limited to 1MB for quite a few years. Keep up, please.
Also, nobody said they NEVER be any bigger, we just have to exhaust all other options prior rising the limit to keep the network as decentralised as possible.
Will everyone in the world run their own lightning node?
Nobody knows but EVERYONE sounds like an extreme. Some people hate being responsible.
The more likely outcome is: either that everyone uses bitcoin custodially or bitcoin just never catches on and dies.
More predictions, lol. And more extremes. What if some people choose to use self custody and some don't? Have you ever thought of that possibility?
reply
Wrong. Bitcoin has much more users now than 5 years ago, fees are much lower. Stop predicting the future if you keep ignoring the past.
This is not a fair comparison. You are talking about many existing on-chain transactions that were moved to lightning. I am talking about increasing the total number of transactions to accommodate the entire world's spending. You can obviously not extrapolate that increase in throughput due to LN adoption forever unless you think bitcoin will continue to invent ways to increase througput non-linearly.
The throughput of lightning is limited by the throughput of on-chain transactions, because you need to have at least some transactions to open and close channels reliably.
Wrong. Bitcoin blogs aren't limited to 1MB for quite a few years. Keep up, please. Also, nobody said they NEVER be any bigger, we just have to exhaust all other options prior rising the limit to keep the network as decentralised as possible.
There is no reason to exhaust all other options. "All other options" basically extends to Paul-Sztorc-esque sidechains. Using that principle, you will eventually force bitcoin to be soft-forked by miners in order to increase throughput on another chain. That is not any better than a hard fork, it's just more manipulative.
Bitcoin's 1MB block size limit is generally centralizing force, as I have argued earlier. The costs of storage are nothing compared to the costs of maintaining LN nodes, which must always be online, have liquidity, etc. Cost of storage/GB tends to decrease exponentially as tech improves.
More predictions, lol. And more extremes. What if some people choose to use self custody and some don't? Have you ever thought of that possibility?
As I have described, the network is not efficient enough to provide for that. If bitcoin takes over, the VAST majority of the global population is forced into custodial usage due to prohibitive fees. The trend is that cost will increase, not decrease as adoption increases. There is no possible way it could get better.
reply
This is not a fair comparison.
You just compared LN to PayPal and now talking about a fair comparison even though I showed you facts only.
Are you a troll??
...unless you think bitcoin will continue to invent ways to increase througput non-linearly.
Do you think Bitcoin is the final product with no more updates being done in the future? This takes me back to my previous question: Are you a troll??
Bitcoin's 1MB block size limit is
Do you know how to read?
Wrong. Bitcoin blogs aren't limited to 1MB for quite a few years.
Again: Are a a troll??
Addressed the rest above, you obviously skipping the reading part. Try to base your predictions on facts or don't do them otherwise you look like a clown, fighting against possibly the biggest revolution of this century - separation of money & state.
reply
You just compared LN to PayPal and now talking about a fair comparison even though I showed you facts only.
I compared two payment systems, you are comparing two different stages of growth (comparing the scalability of pre-LN bitcoin to post-LN bitcoin). What I am saying is that post-LN bitcoin will not be able to continue to scale. You cannot take the change in scalability due to LN and extrapolate that.
Do you think Bitcoin is the final product with no more updates being done in the future? This takes me back to my previous question: Are you a troll??
I think that bitcoiners have largely abandoned the idea of upgrade-by-hard-fork since the XT dispute, much to their own detriment. The obvious way to increase the throughput is to increase block size. You cannot continue to expand bitcoin through soft forks like LN. The only way that you will be able to improve without hardforks is through side-chains, which is basically just making a miner-controlled hard-fork with extra steps.
Bitcoin's 1MB block size limit is Do you know how to read?
Whether or not the block size is exactly 1MB is of no consequence. It is too small. If segwit or something has allowed bitcoin to eek out a couple hundred more kilobytes, it does not matter, it is not enough. My argument still stands.
Addressed the rest above, you obviously skipping the reading part. Try to base your predictions on facts or don't do them otherwise you look like a clown, fighting against possibly the biggest revolution of this century - separation of money & state.
The bitcoin revolution has come and gone. Bitcoiners like you have squandered it with your greed and ignorance. Monero is going to overtake bitcoin, as the monero community has no problem going through all the BIPs and implementing all of the good ideas (ring signatures, confidential transactions, etc.). Now monero actually works as satoshi intended bitcoin to.
reply
you are comparing two different stages of growth (comparing the scalability of pre-LN bitcoin to post-LN bitcoin)
I pointed to hard facts. It's you who is competing fact with fiction.
I think that bitcoiners have largely abandoned the idea of upgrade-by-hard-fork since the XT dispute
Exactly! That's what you think - more fiction. The fact (something you keep missing) is, at least one hard-fork is planned for the future because we all know it's necessary.
a couple hundred more kilobytes, it does not matter
This all is just in your head - fiction. Try more then double. As I said, keep up because you're losing your argument really badly.
The bitcoin revolution has come and gone.
Just in your head - fiction. The fact is, you choose to use Bitcoin just to be here.
works as satoshi intended bitcoin to
More fiction, lol. No, Satoshi intended Bitcoin to be trackable back to the Genesis Block, your shitcoin isn't. Satoshi intended Bitcoin to have a cap on supply, your shitcoin doesn't have.
Asked three times, answer please. Are you a troll?
Or just another shill, using Bitcoin and its community to market the dying shitcoin?
reply
at least one hard-fork is planned for the future because we all know it's necessary.
I guess I'm outside the subset of "we all".. so please enlighten me: what hard-fork is necessary? All I can think of is either a) changing the core crypto to be quantum resistant or b) something to do with the 2038 problem
reply
That's the one - 2038 which we're fine until (I believe) year 2106. If there will be a hardfork to fix that, we might bundle more things into it. Cutting satoshi into another 100 million bits could be another one. That would also make new halvings possible - half sat per block, followed by a quarter of sat for years later and so on (21 million would still be intact in this case). Quantum resistance, larger block space and whatever necessary might find its way into that single hardfork too.
I don't pretend to see the future, just thinking of the possibilities. Some shitcoiners don't realise that never is a really long period of time.
I pointed to hard facts. It's you who is competing fact with fiction.
You have pointed to a casual observation that fees have decreased since implementation of LN, and extrapolated that forever.
This all is just in your head - fiction. Try more then double. As I said, keep up because you're losing your argument really badly.
It is still insufficient. Blocksize needs to increase by an order of magnetude.
Satoshi intended Bitcoin to be trackable back to the Genesis Block, your shitcoin isn't. Satoshi intended Bitcoin to have a cap on supply, your shitcoin doesn't have.
This is a cope. Satoshi intended bitcoin to implement privacy features:
reply
You have pointed to a casual observation that fees have decreased since implementation of LN, and extrapolated that forever.
Pointed to the past - the only facts we have. You're predicting the future - fiction made in your head.
It is still insufficient. Blocksize needs to increase by an order of magnetude.
LOL. Is it you Craig? Go back to your gigamegs and 20 nodes, please. We like Bitcoin to be decentralised.
This is a cope.
You're a cope. You're the one that hates Bitcoin & LN, while using both to market your dying shitcoin.