Lighting Network will never wor-

>take 4 years to get to 500 btc
kek

Underrated post

Do any of you fags realize that lightning is TCP/IP for bitcoin?

I mean it obviously isn’t TCP/IP literally, but it is very similar. If you guys think lightning is a meme, then you should really take a step back and look how the internet was actually created.

Lighting is the next step, and will be the reason bitcoin actually becomes a global currency. It will be the first currency to connect billions of people on a decentralized way.

Yes lighting is decentralized! Anyone can create a lightning node and connect to whoever they please. Just like anyone can buy a router and connect to whoever they please. You are free to create your own lightning network if you wanted to, just like you can create your own private network. That is decentralization. There is no central authority. There is no coordinating node. You are free to create routes as you please.

And for people who don’t know what I mean, TCP/IP is the protocol responsible for routing internet packets over a set of computer connected together in a network. Lighting is literally the same concept, but instead of routing internet packets, you’re routing payments.

Why not just use the current blockchain system?

It’s not scalable. Right now only 30 million bitcoin wallets have been generated, with estimates showing that only roughly 5 million are individual users.

Imagine if 5 billion people were using crypto, there could be potentially 30 billion wallets generated, each on average taking up 225 bytes, could take up 6.5 TB of storage per day. It make much more sense to implement a routing protocol to route transactions cryptographically linked to the main chain.

Thanks for clearing that up Adam. Still, nobody is ever going to use it.

I see no difference between using ln and jumping back and forth between BTC and fiat using traditional exchanges. Big nodes are essentially just banks so everything will naturally gravitate towards them because liquidity has value on its own. In the end ln is like a shitty barely functional retarded bank, nothing else.

Cryptos are all about private transactions, that's it.

You don't need to scale cryptos, that's a made up problem, you just need strong privacy standards and sufficient liquidity.

The first rule in software development is: "don't reinvent the wheel".

Who the fuck needs an alternative to TCP/IP when it's not the problem.
By the time LN takes off (and imo it never will because the whole concept of locking your funds is clunky as fuck, normalfags often can't even deal with bitcoin wallets so let alone managing their funds, but let's pretend it does) let's say minimum 5 years, we will have 50TB HAMRs for 250 bucks, enough to host a node for 10 years with 100MB block for every single crypto out there which isn't ruled by Blockstream.

Attached: TB.png (826x557, 227K)

Nobody will every use crypto. It will never scale to the global population in its current form. Makes me sad to see people rejecting valid computer science principles.

Lightning is more private than bitcoin. Bitcoin is a public ledger. Everyone can trace every transaction you make with bitcoin. Lightning is different because the only thing visible on the ledger are the people you’ve opened a channel with. Similar to how tor works, you can route payments through the people you’re connect to, and nobody knows who the originator of the payment is. It’s a connected graph where people can route payments through each other, not just a single channel.

>payments are not „internet packets“
K then

bump.

Attached: adqakc6dq9901.jpg (1334x293, 84K)

Daily reminder that with ETH staking, we will have 5x the nodes on launch day alone.

First of all, Moore’s law is dead. Good luck with those 50 tb hdd. Even if there hypothetically were 50 tb hdds, it would be nowhere near enough to support the entire planet.

Please tell me how it is efficient to broadcast everyone’s morning cup of coffee to everyone else on the planet.
Pro tip it isn’t. That’s why you cryptographically link to the main chain and verify the integrity of payments using game theory principles with the people you open channels with.

Second, it’s not literally TCP/IP. It is analogous.
If bitcoin is analogous to the transport later of the internet (single links like Ethernet or WiFi routers) then lightning is analogous to TCP/IP (global links, packet routing).

Yeah they’re not the same thing, but they use similar data structures. Just like how databases and compilers aren’t the same thing, yet they both use trees to parse human language.

If I am going offchain and paying routing fees I would rather use paypal tbqh

>could take up 6.5 TB of storage per day
What's the problem with that?
>inb4 oh no then I can't min on my rasberry3.14

>Hes never heard about bamboo plants

Also, the main issue isn't disk space, it's upload/dl speed. When you increase the blocksize it becomes difficult for many nodes to dl/ul new blocks in a ten minute avg. window. And ul/dl speed is tied to ISP's which basically offloads the network's robustness onto the decisions of an oligopoly. It's retarded which is why pretty much everyone who matters said fuck that and sided with Core.

Attached: 1510760154209.png (2168x3696, 2.8M)

Is there any exchange supporting lightning deposit?

Because Moore’s law is dead and nobody has 50 exabyte hdds.

Have you ever heard the phrase work smarter not harder?

Lightning is the intelligent approach to scaling.

Block size is the brute force ineffective way to scale. When dealing with the population of the planet it is an inferior way.

Think of a linear search vs a binary search.

Linear searches work just fine if you only have a few items in an array. At most it takes O(n) to complete. So if there are only 40 item, at most it will take you 40 items to search through until you find the thing you’re looking for.

If you have a million items, you better use a binary search which takes o(log(n)) items to search through.

So rather than searching through 1,000,000 items, it only takes about 20.

Lightning may contain some restraints (like requiring a node to check against theft), but it allows us to scale for billions of people efficiently.

Yeah correct. It isn’t just disk space. It’s also bandwidth.

Also to add on my post above,
Scaling bitcoin by increasing the block size only works linearly, where as lightning allows for exponential scaling. That is why computer scientists are siding with it.

Unfortunately, most of the idiots on this board are too retarded to grasp what you're trying to get them to understand. This board is 60% retard, and 38% greedy shill. There's only a few that actually have IQs above double digits

Attached: 1543383379010.jpg (800x800, 133K)

I mean, I think that plenty of people can grasp what I’m saying. Lightning isn’t really a complicated idea in itself, it’s just more complicated than scaling by raising the blocksize.

There was a time when bitcoin was for nerds. In 2017 that changed, but thank god it’s back to nerds again. Obviously that will change when lightning merchant adoption increases exponentially, but for now it’s refreshing.

Although bitcoin uses some economic theories like game theory, I still view it primarily as a computer science innovation, not an economic one. Many people myopically look at economics while ignoring the facts that most of what defines bitcoin is computer science.

a HURR DURR BUT BCHSVABCDERF iS SatOSHI REEL VISHIN MUH CoRE CuCKS HURRRR

> dem central hubs.
"work" was never the barrier. PayPal works, too. Congratulations on proving BCH right all along. Also congratulations getting rid of the faction on their side that wants the same shit in a different form courtesy of your attempt to damage it.
Coretards got any more own goals to score?

Attached: 1542554624791.png (1025x648, 624K)

"dem central hubs" what about them? lightning networks operation does not depend on them. there will be other "central hubs". some will go offline. LN will continue to work

So basically you're building the stellar consensus protocol on top of bitcoin

Who would this guy side with bud?

Attached: 322335.png (311x363, 97K)

a living organism with three chromosomes 21

> lightning networks operation does not depend on them.
that's wrong tho, stop being a topology nigger. get woke.
cashies are unironically correct desu

Attached: 1543182110718.png (1809x796, 273K)

daily reminder ETH doesn't have current statistics on validating nodes because the blockchain is too big, can't scale, and isn't sustainable

ethernodes.org/network/1

>that most of what defines bitcoin is computer science
I really fucking hate these LN shills more than anything. Fuck you, not the white paper.

But user...

Attached: 1518708404137.jpg (757x525, 87K)

kek, this is LN shills desu

Attached: patrician.gif (500x281, 991K)

those are not validating nodes
eth kids repeat this false information repeatedly

tell me what is the size of the ETH blockchain?
and why do miners get to set the gas limits?

> muh validating nodes are magical
just lol
> muh btc elitism
you... you realise everyone thinks you're a pathetic laughing stock, and when you act like you're elite it just makes it more hilarious?
> tell me what is the size of the ETH blockchain?
What is the size of any continuously growing ledger? You'd need to give a timestamp first.
> and why do miners get to set the gas limits?
So they don't get as fucked in the ass as you did by their own shitty developers?

>not being able to verify the network is hilarious
Tell me how big ETH's blockchain is, any time in the past couple days should do

miners setting the gas limit gives them control over node requirements
it centralizes the entire system, how do you not understand that?

About 667.10GB
> miners setting the gas limit gives them control over node requirements
Shock, horror! The people responsible for actually providing the chain are also responsible for setting the requirements for participating in providing the chain! This is surely inferior to the model of six neckbeards declaring what those requirements are by fiat. YOU HAVE DEFEATED US! BASK IN YOUR EUPHORIA!

Attached: wkom1wgiap021.jpg (2448x2448, 702K)

>About 667.10GB
it broke 1tb over 6 months ago
you don't see the the largest mining cartels having control over who can verify the chain a problem?

> it broke 1tb over 6 months ago
That's wrong. bitinfocharts.com/ethereum/
> you don't see the the largest mining cartels having control over who can verify the chain a problem?
Somebody has to set the requirements for who can run nodes. And I see "all miners who actually mine the chain, who acting in concert would be able to modify the chain as they see fit regardless" as inestimably superior to "a council of six neckbeards, significant fractions of whom have a vested business interest in a venture that directly benefits from keeping the on chain capacity as low as possible, and are also proven to be compromised by various intelligence services around the world, who also would like to keep the chain as low capacity as possible" but maybe I'm just crazy like that.
Except of course, basically every other significant blockchain in existence uses that model or similar to set the node requirements, and --only-- shitcoin core actually sets them by fiat based on compromised and vested interest declarations from a central political council.

it STILL doesn't work

of course it "works" when only 1 guy is using it at the same time in the world. it doesn't scale, which means its purpose isn't met

Attached: trio.png (902x933, 1.24M)

> declarations from a central political council.
Don't call it central, then it will still be decentralised.

Attached: shots-fired-pew-pew-pew.jpg (812x694, 250K)

Why lightning network is a bad idea even if all its issues were solved:

1. you have to set up your payment channel with on-chain transaction. if you have to deal with on-chain transactions anyway you might as well just scale up on-chain instead. if i go to a coffee shop that only have depleted lightning channels i have to make an on-chain transaction. a depleted customer channel will be that way forever unless the store decides to pay someone else through a customer's channel.

2. if someone else use your payment channel they can deplete your funds to a merchant. if there are no other channels, which is likely since otherwise your channel wouldn't be depleted, you now need another on-chain transaction to make a new channel or refund your old one. if you think this is wrong, check: youtu.be/pOZaLbUUZUs

3. if you have 1 BTC and open up four channels with 0.25 BTC on each channel it's impossible to send more than the unspent amount of BTC on that channel even though you own more than 0.25. likewise nobody can receive more BTC than the sum of all their channels (assuming all channels could find a path to the sender and that the right amount of BTC is available at the correct end of each channel).

4. the network will inevitably develop backbone nodes that nearly all transactions pass through (most likely just trusting each other to have the required funds to save time). this "solves" the routing problem but makes the whole thing completely centralized, just like internet is today with master backbone nodes.

5. once you put your crypto into a channel you're basically trapped in the system. it's designed so that you would never want to take it out. eventually there would be almost no in/out on the bitcoin blockchain and at that point bitcoin is essentially dead and you can be sure that there will be talks to just drop it completely in favor of some kind of issued lightning network token.

Attached: roger3.jpg (710x759, 65K)

>That's wrong.
you're wrong that site isn't accurate

6. it's possible to make solutions for micropayment channels on-chain instead. someone just needs to figure out a way for the sender to be able to construct a transaction but he cannot broadcast it, the reciver on the other hand can't change the transaction but he is allowed to broadcast it. the payment channel is then either closed by the receiver with the latest state or it is closed by a timeout with a full refund to the sender.

7. bitcoin (cash) works for payments of all sizes today. there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. we don't live forever and every year we delay crypto adaption is another year the banks will adapt to instant online global payments. you think it's hard to on-board people with crypto today? good luck if banks offer the exact same user experience as crypto. when that happens the only perk crypto has is censorship resistance and most people just don't care if banks are convenient enough.

TL;DR i wouldn't want to use lightning even if it already worked flawlessly with BCH, BTC, ETH, LTC and whatever else.

Attached: The Passion of the Craig.jpg (960x792, 215K)

someone's been watching their andreas antaneaopoulous videos

>BSV will win

opinion discarded lol

Bitch I'm running an ETH node right here and that's the space it's taking... I think you might be wrong.

suit yourself. doesn't help lightning network to function.

Attached: bitcoin cash2.jpg (900x594, 72K)

> muh BCH is BSV
opinion discarded

Attached: 1_2VzrobU9n1crVfrGkIGhLg.png (800x1041, 259K)

Increasing block size is like adding more lanes into a highway

Lightning network is like adding 3d roads vertically up on each other

kinda

oh so the size has been the same since june?
web.archive.org/web/20180626012141/https://bitinfocharts.com/ethereum/

fucking delusional eth kids

I dont support BCH either.

Lightning is only like TCP in that you're routing data between peers. Otherwise its not similar at all. It'd be like TCP if you had to trust a peer with your money for 30 days after connecting to it. Lighting network is not trustless, yes anybody can run a node but that doesn't provide trust between you and the peer. Youre trusting any node that you create a channel between with your money, and that node has to basically create a loan for you to send your transaction, and it isn't actually settled on-chain for 30 days. Its retarded and it's not like the internet at all.

Who cares? Your opinion is invalid, you fell for LN. That you describe it as a "THREE DEE HIGHWAY TOPKEK" is hilarious in light of

nobody even knows how big the ETH blockchain is unless you're operating a mining pool or something lol
wow so decentralized

>lightning isn’t “trustless”, but it heavily incentivized you to play fair. If you don’t play fair, then the other person gets to keep your funds. Again using economic incentives to keep bad actors from doing malicious activities. Also the whole point of lightning is that you’re routing payments between peers, just like how you route packets between peers with the internet. Also the funds are settled as soon as you close the channel. It only takes 30 days if someone tries to cheat.

This shit is retarded. Both users have to have lightning network to transact. Literally useless.

>Hey user, set up this network so we can transact together!
>Why

This. It's way too much hassle unless you are moving at a bare minimum $1000s a day across international borders. Literally smallest use case.

>use lightning node to move 600btc
LN isnt for 600btc transfers, retard.

SIEG HEIL

Attached: based and redpilled.jpg (125x93, 1K)

LN isnt suited for anything really. Huge pain for cup of coffee

Attached: DgkKGV9W0AEpv3B.jpg (698x1200, 100K)

Bitcoin is a small world graph. It is a dense hairball of interconnectivity where miners compete and users achieve what they want by just being users. Nobody needs to run a node, and your stupid Andreas-tier analogies are tiring. Everything can happen on chain.

Attached: z15RtEp.png (579x467, 93K)

>Everything can happen on chain
>Programmers can implement everything using IP, we don't need any of these TCP or UDP or HTTP or SMTP or BitTorrent or Tor protocols

Everything is an ethernet packet at the end of the day.

Attached: 1543430944580.gif (652x562, 626K)

>Everything is a CPU instruction at the end of the day, let's just use machine code. We can add new CPU instructions if we need more functionality, and all we'll need is a hex editor. We can get really big monitors to look at lots of hex code at once. We don't need assembly languages, low level programming languages, high level programming languages, or even libraries, they're a failed idea and we can just use machine code, I bought 7 new monitors so that means I can program 8x as fast now

how do you use it. is there like a simple wallet

XLM/Stellar launching on Saturday.

LTC doesn't need such nonsense

These analogies mean nothing. If that's all you got here... Then godspeed. But I'm telling you, you're daft.

Attached: csw-not-a-mesh.png (1022x815, 1.15M)

Techfags like yourself really need to pick up a basic economics book.

>These analogies mean nothing
Refute them brainlet are you even a library maintainer?

You're too high on your mediocre knowledge of basic internet protocols to bother. It's all economics. That's why LN fails.

Attached: csw-satoshi-scholar.jpg (977x1221, 252K)

>Algorithmic complexity analysis doesn't matter, only economics
>Let's scale our distributed network protocol using O(n) algorithms like block size increases
oof

yeah, satan, its retarded. just like both users have to have bcash addresses. paypal accounts or bank accounts to transact together. i guess every fucking payment system besides cash is fucking retarded, and even then both parties need to have currency to transact

recked so hard holy shit

HOW DO I USE THIS SHIT W/O BEING A COMPUTER ENGINGEER

>Do any of you fags realize that lightning is TCP/IP for bitcoin?

Not even a logical comparison. TCP/IP is a solution for a real world problem. The Lightning network is a solution to a made-up problem. It's like digging a hole and putting a bridge across the hole.

When the internet first came out, it was difficult to understand and granny wasn't sending emails. It was an obscure tool invented by scientists, for scientists. Cryptocurrencies are similar, but they get better and better each year. At first things were mainly command line, now we have pretty GUI wallets and validations and safety guards to make it so even Aunt May and Uncle Dick can learn to run Bitcoin full nodes and transact with cryptocurrencies if they really want to

Lightning Network is still in its infancy, for that reason it may be hard to grasp at first. Don't worry. I'd suggest all of Andreas Antonopoulos's books, including the technical one "Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain" most importantly

Being a "computer engineer" myself I'm probably biased and think it's easier than it really is, but I think if you study enough you can figure out what's going on here

Lightning Network is a solution to the Bitcoin scaling problem (in reality the PoW cryptocurrency scaling problem - no other cryptos have the scale Bitcoin does and as such they don't have these problems yet, but they will or would)

It's a method to scale without increasing block size which helps maintain decentralization

Anti-LN people can never make up their mind. On one hand, Bitcoin has massive scaling problems and therefore we need big blocks. On the other hand, Bitcoin has no problems therefore we don't need LN and big blocks are fine

Which is it?

why is everybody acting like this version of LN is set to stone?

there will be other versions with better routing, remember when network engineers found out that TCP/IP was dogshit and there were better ways of putting this thing into work
Also the LN developers said that its still not ready, its barely in beta development

>now we have pretty GUI wallets and validations and safety guards
we have literally windows 3.1 ASCII interfaces, they havent migrated from the 2012 paradigm of SEND COINS TO ALICE, BOB etc etc
real "pretty" GUI wallets would utilize the other options the bitcoin OP_CODES and give them the flexibility of a technical person while remaining a mouth breather

But that's the point retard. We already have all those things and they work perfectly fine. LN is literally a joke.

"You can already send bytes using IP so TCP is literally a joke, don't even get me started on BitTorrent"

you seem to not understand the main point of ln you dont trust anyone with your coins you got full custody

its not like paypal or an other online wallet

$300 coffee?

i love this post

There is no scaling problem. There never was. Scale has only become a problem when retard devs get involved and alter the protocol.

You got fed a lie by Gordon Maxwell and all the other cops working for Fedstream.

It's funny because you're describing the XRP ledger

Also, you don't understand the difference between centralization and centrality.

Bitcoin is a tightly wound ball, with lots of edges and outliers communicating with a dense central ball of industrial scale miners. This is how it was always meant to work.

Mesh = weakness and vulnerability on top of a broken fractional economic system

Centrality with a small world near complete graph = hard money

Attached: 1534586763720.png (680x311, 166K)