LN Centralization

bchnodes.online/
cash.coin.dance/blocks/today

just as decentralized as BTC just without the risk of banks taking over with lightning hubs + BCH actually still keeps signatures in the blockchain (no segwit)

Attached: lightning network.jpg (800x600, 49K)

Can't I fix that by running a node and blacklisting those IPs?

Yeah so is there really any way to keep crypto decentralized and out of the hands of a few wealthy people/organisations?

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-05-16 at 12.44.22 AM.png (585x610, 490K)

"A bank is a financial institution that accepts deposits from the public and creates credit." (WP).

The "creates credit" aspect is the central concept of a bank. A bank creates credit. Lending money is the core business model of banks. So something which doesn't lend money isn't a bank. The core concept of LN is that money in a channel needs to be funded first. A LN node doesn't lends money, so it isn't a bank.

Lending money is also the real problem, risk etc with banks:

If a bank lends out money to the wrong people, the bank can become bankrupt and all their customers deposits can't be payed back anymore which can create lots of trouble if banks hold lots of money. A LN channel only has the money which is funded first so it can't go bankrupt. People will always get their money back. There is no possibility of a bank run or economic collapse as with banks.

Also a bank can create "money from nothing" because of fractional reserve banking: The bank can lend money it doesn't have, needing only a fraction in reserves. That's what's known as "fiat money" and this has its own risks. With LN this isn't possible because channels needs to be funded with 100% of the money they contain, so also no risk here.

So LN doesn't creates "banks" again. LN nodes are no banks because the core aspect, "creating credit" is missing. People who repeat FUD like "LN just reinvents the banking system" simply have no clue how banks work and where the real risks are - or they use this analogy to push their agenda. So be aware.

Alright to the analogy is flawed. Are you denying thought that it's a path to massive centralization? Are you saying that this is somehow still in line with what Bitcoin was envisioned to be? I'm not asking rhetorical questions, I genuinely want to know your views on this.

BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH BCASH

This. We're unironically all-in LINK here. And the dudes that made profit off ETH/NEO all left months ago. So you're left arguing with poorfags and other paid pajeets. Good luck with that.

If you think a protocol will create CENTRALIZATION you either:
A: Don't understand what centralization means
OR
B: Don't understand the Lightning Network

And that's why BTC will win.
You can't fight banks, you join them.

yeah by putting it into the hands of many wealthy people/organisations

and if they come together and starts mischief you fork away from the corruption - exactly what happened with Bitcoin Cash. if all the different client come together and make poor decisions it's just to fork off into a new project.

if enough people follow, as with bitcoin cash, it was a legit fork. if nobody follows the new implementation wasn't that problematic after all.

it did happen once before though, in 2015, that people SHOULD have followed the XT fork. bitcoin was already corrupted, however people still had too much faith in the original BTC fork. if it ever happen again people will remember the past and follow more quickly to the new fork.

Attached: pick yourself up.jpg (460x460, 55K)

if you join banks BTC have lost. it's an experiment and the whole point is to cut banks out of the loop. if they become BTC (via lightning) it's no longer bitcoin except in name

Okay so tell me where I'm wrong here: LN channels cannot transfer higher sums then are staked by the person opening the channel. So in order to transfer larger sums, you need an entity that holds massive amounts of Bitcoin. How exactly does that not encourage centralization?

shill COMBO!!!!

anyway, you can post lies all day, won't change the fact that the lightning network works, and isn't centralized.

I think it's a bigger problem than that. So then you have a new (legitimate) fork that cuts out the corruption. But let's say this happens a few years down the road and let's say that at this stage Bitcoin has seen some significant amount of adoption. There's no guarantee that the adoption will switch to new fork. In fact, it's much more likely to stay entrenched with the corrupt system.

>isn't centralized
Can you elaborate on this? Because it kind of seems like it is. A refutation (rather than a denial) of the claims would be greatly appreciated.

You selected 2 large nodes to highlight only.
Op is a faggot

check for yourselves anons lnmainnet.gaben.win/

Attached: lightning may.png (776x662, 335K)

For starters it has more nodes than BCH (even more since the fork lol), plus you can open a channel of any value to any participant, so its inherently not rigged towards centralization. Also look at this,

rompert.com/recksplorer/

There are a lot of nodes that are connected to a lot of other nodes, there is no central node. You can inspect this. A lot of people say "look, so many central hubs" well at what point does many 'central' hubs become a decentralized system?

BCH vs BTC battle for the soul of bitcoin is the most interesting thing going on in crypto right now.

Thanks for that response. Going to do a bit more reading on this subject.

aye, nothing's guaranteed in life but as far as i know having several development teams and several people with the right to approve code merge is the best way we have to keep crypto decentralized and out of the hands of a few wealthy people/orgs. its true that if bitcoin cash gets corrupted in 20 years it will be tough to make people switch over. BTC has only been corrupted for 5 years and it was really hard to make people understand that they need to switch over, it still is hard. with the amount of misinformation that is being spread now i cant even imagine the amount that would be spread if it had been rooted for 20 years. all we can do is to get more developers involved that have permission to commit code.

Attached: bitcoin cash so cash.jpg (725x483, 205K)

shabang.io/
p2sh.info/dashboard/db/lightning-network?orgId=1
rompert.com/recksplorer/
lnmainnet.gaben.win/

check the reported channels. how could anybody trust a "decentralized network" if nobody can't even agree on how the network is structured? how is routing supposed to happen in this? it's inevitable for a "backbone" to not happen

Attached: companion cube night table.jpg (450x299, 112K)

>how could anybody trust a "decentralized network" if nobody can't even agree on how the network is structured?
Are you fucking stupid.
Just because some autists are arguing with some paid shills on a Mongolian rope skipping forum doesn't mean anything.
Compared to how long its going to be around it is very new.
Anybody can open up a channel and the network will develop
you stupid nigger.