A year ago
a LN Dev mentioned a possible upper limit of 10k - 1m channels
With the surge of adoption recently,
LN crossed 16k channels
with no mention of this limit from BTC, BCH or BSV
I'm a fan of Lightning, but if this upper limit is true
only 100-500k people can use it
(ideally each user has at least 3-10 channels open)
Has it been fixed?
or is this an unsolved issue?
Other urls found in this thread:
news.bitcoin.com
toshitimes.com
fortune.com
reddit.com
youtu.be
youtu.be
ambcrypto.com
cointelegraph.com
twitter.com
it's been resolved LN can scale to 10s of millions txs.
the routing problem is unsolveable, its only going to get worse
Lol wut?
Also, it doesn't matter if lightning can or can't scale to "millions of txs" (it can't) because every transaction must be completed on-chain. So bitcoin HAS to increase the blocksize to accommodate lightning. Without it, you're just trading IOUs on a network of nodes run by banks
>LN
Might as well invest in cold fusion.
great, thanks user
are you referring to the failure rate with high value transactions?
that has only improved over time, and will continue to
>every transaction must be completed on-chain.
technically, yes
but LN allows hundreds of transactions to be compressed into 2
and they dont have to be settled on-chain for days, weeks or months
>bitcoin HAS to increase the blocksize to accommodate lightning
no shit, nobody is arguing against that
we just dont want the block size to snowball when we have far better ways of scaling
>trading IOUs on a network of nodes run by banks
incorrect
sure, banks could participate in LN
(like how Hollywood could participate in seeding torrents)
but they have no custody of anyone's money,
they merely rout payments like any other user
and since LN requires 'hot wallets'
this disincentivizes anyone from keeping a huge amount of money in LN
which is required to act as any kind of hub
(theres a reason exchanges only keep 1-2% of their funds in hot wallets)
The only way for there to be enough liquidity for transfers is for large, centralized hubs to route payments.
wrong again
larger payments can be split up and routed across multiple paths,
if any one path doesnt have enough liquidity
these kinds of payments ($300+)
are usually less time/fee sensitive anyway
>oh no
>I had to pay a 2 cent fee
>AND wait 20 seconds to transfer $500
much better to have to wait 2/3 blocks for confirmations right?
>larger payments can be split up and routed across multiple paths,
>if any one path doesnt have enough liquidity
That's not how probability works, smartguy. Let's say you have 10 channels, and each channel gives you a 10% chance of routing $10. You attempt to route the payment on all 10 channels. Giving you a
Roughly 65% chance. So instead you cut the payments in half ($5), which gives you a 20% chance of succeeding. You try again. You need 2 successful routes for the payment to be approved. This is a 62%. Try again with $2.5 and 40%, 61%. If we repeat this process we approach 50%. A far from guaranteed result.
This does not take into account that very small payments will use rapidly use up bitcoin in small routes, so it's not really a solution.
ITs been 1 fucking year. And what are we still "15 months away"? I mean it doesn't matter we got bigger blocks and no one ended up using them, Kek. All that drama for nothing. Fucking Bcash assers.