in

Lightning Network FUD. Is it true?

Lightning Network FUD. Is it true?



View Reddit by RubbishHodlerView Source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

12 Comments

  1. I think this person has no idea what they are writing. Lightning is using 2900 BTC as of today compared to the author’s 2800 BTC claimed limit. The LN had limits in the channel opening when it was launched to prevent people from losing money and specifically to avoid centralization (0.167 bitcoin/channel limit initially). This limit was also necessary since a big bitcoin whale could have used their bitcoin stash to create a central lightning node with high liquidity channels centralizing LN and hence the limit is per channel and not on the network (so any claim of 2800 BTC limit on the network is false and misleading). One can always open a new channel and increase the liquidity on LN.

    The benefits are lost if a trusted third party is required **for double-spending**, please highlight the full statement. The author has cut-off Satoshi’s statement in mid to use it for his own agenda.

    The LN has issues no doubt such as 10% nodes providing 80% liquidity, pinning, griefing attacks being very real. However, those 10% nodes became so huge, because they provided trust to the community, and smaller nodes when they first join, connect to those trusted nodes to avoid pinning and griefing attacks on themselves. One should only connect to trusted and proven good nodes in the community so as to not lose funds.

    Not everyone on the planet is going to run a full lightning node, so people claiming that it will take 60, 70 years for everyone to on-board bitcoin main-net is a stupid claim. Running an honest lightning node is a difficult task. If you go offline as soon as you opened an inbound liquidity channel with someone, you are marked as a bad node even if going offline was not an intentional mistake you made. So, maybe a few million people will run a lightning node in the future and provide the service to billions of people in the world. Each lightning channel can handle 281 trillion states (which basically means 281t transactions or 281t hops in the correct terminology). 281t is a huge number, so, i have no idea what these people claim when they say lightning is not scalable.

    This means that a few million lightning channels (5-10 million) are more than capable to handle all the world’s transactions for decades to come and 5-10 million lightning channels can be on-boarded/off-boarded on the bitcoin main-net within a month.

  2. There is some truth in this article, but the overall take is exaggerated and biased.

    ​

    1. Satoshi knew and told himself that some big players would be handling most of the network. That does not mean that they control it though. You for example could move your payment through the node of a normal person, but you’d have to pay higher fees, so it’s more likely that your payment will go through one of the big nodes.
    2. The capacity increases along with the user. He says it’s impossible for lightning to scale but why is that? Less than 5% of the world uses bitcoin today. As it increases, the capacity of lightning will increase gradually.

  3. You can see that the person writing the article is very biased against bitcoin and is willing to enter into mental gymnastics to justify his bias.

    You can see it clearly when he lies saying that El Salvador is forcing people to use the Chivo app, but that is a lie, you can use any LN app.

    Then he also says businesses wouldn’t use Bitcoin because it is volatile and they can’t set a price for a service when it can change any other day. But ignores you can set price in USD, and convert dynamically to usd at any time. That is a non issue.

    I don’t know much about the other issues but if he was willing to lie in those above, he for sure also lies or misrepresents all other info.

  4. No, the claims made here are absurd. Seems the main *points* attempted to be made are- LN is centralized (wrong) – LN can’t scale (?) – and Bitcoin price volatility makes the LN unfeasible. (Wrong, there is no correlation)

    None of the claims made are supported by anything other than opinion.

  5. tldr; Whenever someone brings up how slow and expensive the BTC network is, the most common counter-argument from a Bitcoin maxi is the Lightning Network. This is a typical red herring as it totally distracts us from Bitcoin’s faulty network by attempting to shift the attention to Lightning.

    *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*

  6. If you’re tranfering millions of $ worth, who cares if it takes 20 minutes and cost 10$. What you care about is whether it will get there safely. As far as volativity goes, the Canadian $ is up several points against the US in the last month or so.

What do you think?

Bitcoin Analysis

Bitcoin, Ethereum, Binance Chain Price Analyses

Suex crypto exchange

co-founder of crypto exchange Suex fired  – The Cryptonomist