
Sidechains and Lightning, the New New Bitcoin - adrianmacneil
http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/13/down-the-blockchain-rabbit-hole/
======
freework
The Lightning network solves the wrong problem. The whole idea behind the
lightning network is to reduce the growth of the blockchain. The blockchain
growing is not going to be a factor that effects the operation of the network.

Instead I'd rather see people try to fix the problem of it being expensive to
spend bitcoin sourced from many small inputs. This is a problem that the
lightning network does not address.

So if the lightning network does get build, we'll all be able to use
microtransaction channels which will slow the growth of the blockchain, but
will still cost $20 in fees to send $100 worth of bitcoin sent in tiny UTXOs.

~~~
josephpoon
>Instead I'd rather see people try to fix the problem of it being expensive to
spend bitcoin sourced from many small inputs.

Lighting does this. With a single blockchain transaction, you can conduct as
many micropayment transactions as you desire with anyone else this network.
After the first funding transaction (which is broadcast on the blockchain),
there are no more blockchain transactions until you wish to settle the
channel. All micropayment transactions are deferred and net settled on channel
closure. Your current balance is updated off-blockchain securely with real
bitcoin transactions (which current state can be broadcast at time by either
party).

>So if the lightning network does get build, we'll all be able to use
microtransaction channels which will slow the growth of the blockchain, but
will still cost $20 in fees to send $100 worth of bitcoin sent in tiny UTXOs.

It'll probably cost a lot to set up the channel and to close it out, but
you'll only do that once and it can last for years. It's equivalent to setting
up a bank account. The actual day-to-day payments are off-chain (without
counterparty risk).

------
testingonprod
Honestly do people still care about Bitcoin? Is it still a thing?

~~~
timbowhite
I've never understood Hacker New's (majority) vitriol towards Bitcoin.

It's literally programmable money.

~~~
mpyne
Money is "programmable money". It's like saying that a magic new protocol that
inefficiently creates an emergent behavior that resembles the behavior of
email is somehow better than just building a web service that does the job
directly and efficiently.

It's not better, even if it is a nifty hack.

~~~
timbowhite
I suppose I wasn't clear - I meant programmable in the sense that permission
from someone else is not required.

~~~
mpyne
But "permission" from other people is required, even on Bitcoin. Try spending
more from an UXTO than the UXTO is actually worth and see how fast your
suggested transaction is rejected by the rest of the nodes and miners in the
Bitcoin network...

~~~
timbowhite
Can't tell if trolling... but I'll bite:

Permission required to participate in Bitcoin = none

Permission required to participate in any electronic-fiat-money-transfer-
system™ = mucho

~~~
bduerst
You don't need permission to use cash.

You need permission to use cash with someone's online infrastructure because
the world is rife with bad actors.

A payment system isn't graded by "permissions", it is graded by how well it
handles disputes. That is why in it's current state, the future-of-money-
Bitcoin™ won't work for many, many people and isn't competitive. (even with
multi-sig escrow)

~~~
brighton36
So, if the world is rife with bad actors, why does cash work so well offline?
You should consider that online systems are more risky, mostly due to their
pull-based nature, which is why so many roadblocks exist in traditional
Internet-based value routing systems. As for competitive, clearly you've never
bought something with Bitcoin online.

~~~
bduerst
What's clear is that you have a cognitive bias about bitcoin - I _have_ used
it online, which is irrelevant because you can make statements critical to
something without having ever used it.

You're canvassing this thread making vapid pro-bitcoin arguments, which is
probably your attempt to reconcile reality with your constructed view of
Bitcoin. It's okay to admit Bitcoin isn't competitive.

