Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Show HN: Lightning Network Search and Analysis Engine (1ml.com)
106 points by mOneThousand 4 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 98 comments



Does anyone know how Lightening Network code actually routes nodes?

The LN claim is basically decentralized BGP but much more complex and prone to race condition errors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug8NH67_EfE&feature=youtu.be...

The white paper doesn't even mention how LN routing works!

  8.4 Payment Routing

  It is theoretically possible to build a route map 
  implicitly from observing 2-of-2 multisigs on the 
  blockchain to build a routing table. Note, however, 
  this is not feasible with pay-to-script-hash transaction 
  outputs, which can be resolved out-of-band from the 
  bitcoin protocol via a third party routing service. 
  Building a routing table will become necessary for 
  large operators (e.g. BGP, Cjdns). Eventually, with 
  optimizations, the network will look a lot like the 
  correspondent banking network, or Tier-1 ISPs.

It seems impossible to implement true decentralized routing, so it's likely they're using some sort of hack to prioritize "masternodes" as the backbone routers instead of actual peer to peer routing.


> It seems impossible to implement true decentralized routing, so it's likely they're using some sort of hack to prioritize "masternodes" as the backbone routers instead of actual peer to peer routing.

What do you mean "impossible to implement true decentralized routing"? Many examples of decentralized distance vector and link state algorithms exist. I'm not sure what they are doing but routing isn't some mystical thing that requires a master node.

Here's a thing I did a while ago: https://github.com/jtremback/reactive-payment-routing


I was so impressed by this, I went snooping into your Github and saw you are now working on https://altheamesh.com/

Which I have to say, is a very cool project and one I would love to help spread when your protocol can handle 3G or LTE-like speeds. Keep up the good work: you're really on to something with this project!


Very interesting and impressive project, thanks for sharing!

It seems like p2p routing might work for a small network, but the complexity turns chaotic at scale very quickly. I guess time will tell how effective the LN implementation is.


just like with TSP - if you are willing to make concessions about accuracy, the problem becomes much more manageable.


LN is DOA.

Routing does not work. And it will never work.

Long live Bitcoin Cash


Yeah! Like Segwit, which now already runs 30% of all transactions (source: reddit ). Ver is like Ballmer who didn’t see the iPhone coming


SegWit will do nothing for long term scaling. Watch and see.


Expcept it does already


We're implementing a public-key based radix tree routing algorithm over here at gun, which is ranked #2 in blockchain ( https://github.com/topics/blockchain ).

Better, physical proximity (via Bluetooth or WiFi mesh networks) would provide immediate local routing. This would work with the above.


The whole thing is fishy. The lightning network is pushed by Blockstream, a company which has a large number of devs working on bitcoin core. They were responsible for all the propaganda and talking points against bumping the block size leading to the BCH fork, because they wanted the "correct" solution of their lightning network. The fact that it is so complex and ill defined is dangerous and an antithesis of decentralized system design and ethos, as it's not clear how trustless transactions are protected. How do we know that there isn't an easy backdoor that allows this network to be controlled for Blockstream's purposes?


This is pure FUD.

Satoshi himself proposed the first version of payment channels [1]. The Lightning Network paper has zero authors from Blockstream [2]. At least two other entirely independent companies are working on Lightning Network implementations [3][4]. It's well understood how trustless LN transactions work [5]. The spec [6] and code are open source, feel free to look for a "backdoor".

1. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Payment_channels#Nakamoto_high-fr...

2. https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

3. https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd

4. https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair

5. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hashed_Timelock_Contracts

6. https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc


Whenever I see the term "FUD" nowadays I think "ah, someone who is invested in a cryptocurrency, this will definitely be an unbiased view".


Only one of the implementation is coded by blockstream. It's a protocol, anybody else can create an implementation of it. Several other companies have created clients like LND (https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd) - probably more popular than clightning.

> How do we know that there isn't an easy backdoor that allows this network to be controlled for Blockstream's purposes?

The code of clightning is open source, so is the code of most known clients out there.

> The fact that it is so complex and ill defined is dangerous and an antithesis of decentralized system design and ethos

Your comment really seems like a baseless conspiracy theory full of ad hominems with no proof of what you mention: - it's not that crazy complex compared to all the intricacies / op codes and game theory of the Bitcoin base layer - it is more easily distributed than the base layer since it's easier to run a LN node by itself (albeit still relying on a bitcoin full node that may not be in your control if you wish it so).

And like other said, Blockstream doesn't have many employees working on the base protocol (3 now afaik since Luke Dash JR & G.Maxwell do not work for Blockstream anymore). The few they have actually made very useful contributions to the code base since 2011/2012 which you can easily see through and most of their code is also used in all forks of Bitcoin aka BTG, BCH etc...

> They were responsible for all the propaganda and talking points against bumping the block size leading to the BCH fork

Any proof on that? Almost no bitcoin developers (albeit none apart of maybe 1 if you count Gavin which didnt contribute for years on the code base) left to work on this particular fork. There was no scientific consensus stipulating larger blocks (than 4mb) would be safe hence why the community at large did not support BCH (and why it has a minority of market share and mining share, TX usage etc).


This is confused or wrong. They don’t have a large number of devs working on Core. They did propose and code a solution which increased the block size. Saying things are fishy and that open source solutions widely reviewed over years by a broad set of people have some secret easy supposed backdoor, seems pretty wrong to me.


what? There are 3 different implementations of the Lightning network, they all implement the same protocol and are all open source. You seem to be either very misinformed or just trying to spread FUD.


While everyone else argues about wether LN is evil or great, I'll just comment on your product.

It's a nice tool, akin to the block explorers out there. One minor thing I noticed, where you define the node colour in the sidebar, sometimes if it is dark the hexcode cannot be seen.

There's a way to fix this by dynamically determining the color in javascript for example, and changing the text atop of it to white.


Thanks for the feedback. Fixed it with CSS text-shadow


What are the regulatory hurdles to operating a lightning node in the US? It makes you a money transmitter, right?


Here is something from Andreas Antonopoulos on this topic: https://youtu.be/c4TjfaLgzj4?t=14m35s

I think the most important aspect is that Lightning Nodes are just sending bitcoin transactions, the whole system is trustless, the node relying your transaction to destination can't steal your money any more then bitcoin full node relying your transaction to miners can.


Thanks. That was very unsatisfying, though. He's right that there are usually thresholds where money-transmitter laws kick in, but having to track that and refrain once you hit the limit would be onerous and limiting.


If FinCEN rules that operating a lightning node constitutes acting as a money transmitter, it would be unenforceable. It may still discourage operating an intermediate node in the US and shift the majority of nodes to other countries.


Why unenforceable?


The same way Bitcoin can't realistically be stopped by any government. (Short of seizing network hashing power..)


Or by ruling that it is illegal to buy, sell or own bitcoin.

While bitcoin might continue, most citizens will stop bothering at that point because buying or selling bitcoin shows up in tax audits.

The government can also make it illegal to operate a bitcoin node or transmit bitcoin transactions, including for ISPs, which would get the protocol quickly blocked.

Additionally they could rule Bitcoin to be an illegal form of monetary exchange which would mean that anything you buy via bitcoin would get you in hot water in addition to the tax problems if you can't prove you used a legal monetary method.

Of course, some people might use Tor and somehow manage to get money extracted from the Tax system so they can buy bitcoin without their local tax office knowing... but how many of the Mr. Normal population are able and willing to do that for bitcoin?

I think you severely underestimate the power of the government.


> While bitcoin might continue, most citizens will stop bothering at that point because buying or selling bitcoin shows up in tax audits.

But they'd only show up for a short period of time (in this scenario) because after a while bitcoin wouldn't really be worth anything. Lol.


You will have a drug war on your hands, only way harder to enforce thanks to encryption.

It's a losing game, and I think you forget that there are way too many rich people in positions of power who like crypto for it to be successfully killed. The ruling classes actually like it more than the lower classes do.


The drug war hasn't really helped in putting illegal drugs into mainstream use.

Mainstream users will not use bitcoin if it becomes illegal. End of story. Maybe some people continue to use it but it'll probably be far below any drug usage levels.

>It's a losing game, and I think you forget that there are way too many rich people in positions of power who like crypto for it to be successfully killed. The ruling classes actually like it more than the lower classes do.

That's barely relevant because the "rich ruling classes" could still do it. I'm evaluating this as "what if they do" not "would they do"


Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are nothing without public exchanges.


Wait until most cryptos support atomic swaps.


Still useless from the PoV of this argument until you get to the point where you can buy stuff you need directly in crypto without conversion to fiat. We're a long way from that now, and the closest practical workaround (bitcoin to gift cards to stuff) goes away if the government gets hostile.

The government doesn't have to make it impossible for cypherpunks and superhackers to use bitcoin, it just has to scare normal people. That's easily done with a few laws and some gratuitous enforcement, e.g., throw a few thousand people in jail for tax evasion, watch how long it takes for these casual hodlers to liquidate. That's 90% of the battle won, and 90% will probably be enough.


There may be a kernal of truth to this, but the fact is, to do this with overwhelming force there needs to a strong social impetus to do this.

With drugs you had families ruined by drug addiction desperate for a solution.

With bitcoin you have... what? Unwavering respect for the right of governments to restrict something most people can identify has at least some utility?

The social consensus for a harsh crackdown is not there, and like the internet on issues with copyright, governments will continue to muddle along as this all evolves way quicker than they can deal with it (kind of like Uber).


> With bitcoin you have... what?

You have a government losing its sovereignty over its own money supply, for all practical purposes. After being invaded, or losing territory due to an invasion, that's about as serious a threat as any on offer.


Yeah, sorry, I replied to the parent while thinking forward. I agree that in order for cryptos to succeed, merchants have to use them first. It is definitely not simple and we are far from it because it involves rendering the current system obsolete and a mental shift in how we think about money and governance. Eventually I expect governments to be affected, too.


I've seen nothing to suggest that a LN operator would be considered a money transmitter. Whats your best reason for thinking so, and why does your definition of money transmission not include miners?


Miners only register a transfer of value and validate it against their perspective of the current ledger. Transfer routed through a lightning channel involves explicit exchange of funds between intermediaries.


this is not entirely correct. in A -> B -> C payment at no point does B hold A's money with a promise to pay it forward to C.


B's balance with A and C fluctuate during the transfer, though, and that is enough to at least make it look like a money-transmitter relationship.

The onion routing is very unfortunate, because it means regulators are likely to treat the network as a blatant money-laundering tool.


https://coincenter.org/files/2018-01/federalalternativev1-1.... talks about the general picture (I only skimmed it). It wants reform to "include a safe harbor for novel businesses that do not create the sort of risks to consumers that money transmission licensing is meant to address (but which may be treated as money transmitters under a loose interpretation of some state statutes)."


I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding:

A LN node is no more a "money transmitter" than any internet router that a bank transaction flows through is a "money transmitter".

The node or router can't "steal" or modify the amount or destination in any way, and there is no counterparty risk with either of them, so they both aren't "money transmitters".


I think the same could be said of any bitcoin node.


But a regular bitcoin node isn't transferring money. It's simply tracking the state of the network. A lightning node is creating transactions and financial agreements with other nodes in the network.


Bitcoin nodes propagate transactions created by users as well.


They relay information about transactions, but do not receive and resend value as a lightning node does.


You're transmitting cryptocurrency, not fiat. So I'm unsure how it works.


What does "capacity" mean in this context?


Lightning Network seems very confusing. It's unclear to a casual user what "capacity" is and what it means to them. Or what any of this means, really.


I don't think the end user needs to know anything about capacities or other technical details the same way a user doesn't need to know their internet speed.

The end user experience will be having a hot wallet in your computer/phone or online service like coinbase that will handle all the routing, channel setup, etc for you. Like when you use bittorrent you don't need to manually connect to peers, the bittorrent client handles that for you.


I found this article very helpful in explaining generally what happens in the lightning network. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/bitcoins-lightni...


Alice and Bob each commits $5 to open a channel. The capacity of that channel is $10. They can make as many transactions as they want between them


Where does the $10 come into play? Can they only transfer up to $10's worth of currency?


From what I understand--yes. They would need to "settle" their transfer on the blockchain and then open a new channel. The solution to this from what I've read is an IOU mechanism and a third party that has a channel with almost everyone. If the third party is rich then each channel is theoretically huge.

ALICE --(IOU to bob for 10k)---> CAROL --(IOU from alice for 10k)--> BOB


I'm a bit of a BTC novice here, so help me understand something: Does this not mean that on the LN there will necessarily be BTC that's essentially "floating" in the network, that hasn't settled on the Blockchain? What does this mean for liquidity and the integrity of the network in general?


Yep basically. BTC is tied up in channels and when you want to take it out of the lightning network you write a transaction to the actual block chain. Though with the way lightning routing works you can keep your money in the network for months or even years making hundreds of transactions. It's kind of like having a debit account (bitcoin lightning) and a savings account (bitcoin stored in cold storage) with your bank.


What happens to the engine trustless selling point of bitcoin when the only plausible scalability solutions entail reintroducing trusted third parties?


The great thing about lightning is that it doesn't introduce trusted third parties: it only requires that nodes have commited funds.


You don't need to trust the third parties, that's the point.


The sum of all channels capacity measured in satoshis.


what does capacity mean in that context?


When a user opens a channel it has to lock up some BTC. That is called channel capacity because for payments to be routed through that channel (even other people's payments) that channel at least needs to have the same or more amount of BTC available. If you want to route a bigger payment you need to find a channel with more capacity.


It's the amount of bitcoins currently in the network


So it's not a limit, it's the amount currently in the channel?


Think pre paid debit card split between two people


I have watched couple of introductions on LN and had some questions, if someone can help:

a. What effect does this have on transaction sizing?

b. Does the the node owner charge fees for each transaction?

c. How are the channel amounts calculated? Do they include mining and node fees?


a. LN transactions and Bitcoin transactions are different things, i will assume you mean "how does LN affect Bitcoin's chain capacity?" - to use LN you have to make at least one Bitcoin transaction - so called "funding" transaction which opens or refills a channel, afterwards you can make millions of LN micropayments - none of them will affect Bitcoin tx capacity.

b. Yes, it's part of node configuration, you can set whatever fee you like, but most probably at this point everybody will just route around you.

c. When creating the funding transaction you decide the amount of satoshi to be locked up in a channel for use in LN. Funding transaction is subject to normal Bitcoin transaction fees (x sat/byte, the higher you pay the faster it's committed and your channel becomes usable).


a. I meant bitcoin transaction sizing. Bitcoin fees are driven by transaction sizes and my understanding (edited) is for a LN channel to be opened and closed, the transaction needs to committed to the blockchain. What are the expected size of these transactions? And how does Segwit work for these transactions?

b. Thanks for the answer. (Edited): So, it seems the current argument there will be too much competition for nodes hence people will automatically set low or no fees.

c. This is unclear to me. Normally, when I am paying for stuff in bitcoin sellers tend to attach an estimated fee for the transaction. Lets take an example, I need to pay 0.1 BTC they will charge 0.101 BTC. The 0.001 BTC is the transaction fee.

With LN nodes charging fees on top of it, businesses now will have two fees to account for?

Additionally, my understanding now is that there are three fees now:

a. Channel Opening fees to miners

b. Node fees which might be zero

c. Channel Closing fees to miners


> What are the expected size of these transactions?

LN deposit/close transactions don't carry any information about LN payments made on the channel, so their size doesn't grow with usage. They are simply 2-2 multisig transactions, so somewhat larger than the minimal 1-in-1-out tx, but probably (didn't check this) not larger than median bitcoin transaction.

> And how does Segwit work for these transactions

those are always pay-to-witness-script-hash transactions, so they don't even work without segwit: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/maste...

> current argument there will be too much competition for nodes hence people will automatically set low or no fees

it's not as easy, there are multiple incentives and discentives working here. lowering fees will bring more volume but increase cpu/io load. higher volume also means you need to have more capacity on your channels, which essentially means lots of funds in a hot wallet - a target for hackers. high volume also means you might become target for authorities wanting to track payments in LN. et cetera.

> With LN nodes charging fees on top of it, businesses now will have two fees to account for?

technically yes, but the fee for deposit transaction is paid only once per channel and merchants (usually) won't be involved with it. it's reasonable to assume that users will mostly fund channels with larger nodes because that brings better connectivity (you don't want to have a channel with starbucks, mcdonalds and burger king, you want single channel with a node that invested in having a lots of channels).

as for the three fees you listed - yes (but not necessarily to miners?). the assumption is that you will rarely be opening and closing channels, just like you're rarely opening and closing a new debit card. you'll open with a reliable node that makes you routable, you'll once in a while deposit more funds and eventually you will close the channel. in between you can have bajillion transactions for which you will pay close to zero fees.


Thanks for the other clarifications but this part leaves me confused.

> mostly fund channels with larger nodes because that brings better connectivity (you don't want to have a channel with starbucks, mcdonalds and burger king, you want single channel with a node that invested in having a lots of channels).

Lets take an example. Bob wants to pay Starbucks for his coffee. Alice is running a node which has a channel open to Starbucks. Now he can open a channel to Starbucks directly and pay for his coffee. But that is time/fees consuming so he will pay Alice, who will then pay to Starbucks on his behalf?

If that is true, doesn't that put too much power in Alice's hand? And if there are some nodes which have heavily invested in cpu/io and coins to their channels, wont they effectively control a large part of the transaction volume and hence make the network more decentralized?

> you will rarely be opening and closing channels, just like you're rarely opening and closing a new debit card.

I get confused every time this analogy is brought up. Sure, I don't need to open/close debit cards but those cards are loaded automatically when I get my salary/income. And the money is not tied, I can move it around as much as I want.

On the other hand, again, as per my understanding LN requires me to commit an amount and I have to make do with it until the amount runs out. So, its more like a prepaid gift card with fixed commitments and a reload feature.


> If that is true, doesn't that put too much power in Alice's hand? And if there are some nodes which have heavily invested in cpu/io and coins to their channels, wont they effectively control a large part of the transaction volume and hence make the network more decentralized?

what do you mean by "power"? yes, there will be nodes handling more transactions than other nodes, but that in no way prevents you from using other nodes or even investing into opening channels yourself and competing.

> those cards are loaded automatically when I get my salary/income. And the money is not tied, I can move it around as much as I want.

not everybody carries a debit card connected to their main bank account. and those that do usually have daily limits on how much they can spend, so you can't really move it around as much as you want. similar to that, not every BTC holder stores their BTC in hot wallet. funding your debit card is similar to funding your hot wallet which is similar to funding your LN channels.

don't take the analogy too far though. point is that LN allows you to do is micropayments without flooding the blockchain. there are tradeoffs involved. that's it.


LN transactions are bitcoin transactions though they aren’t broadcast to the blockchain most of the time.


you could argue either way depending on your definition of what bitcoin transaction is. if it's a separate entry in the blockchain then no, LN transactions aren't bitcoin transactions. if it's transfer of value within bitcoin's network with same security characteristics, then yes, LN transactions are bitcoin transactions.


a. Transaction on bitcoin's blockchain should be less than ever if everyone start using lightning.

b. The node owner do charge fees every time someone use their node : https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/68767/how-are-fe...

c. There's not mining in lightning, it's only done on blockchain. What do you mean "channel amounts" ?


Have they solved the distributed routing problem? I watched many videos on the LN, and it's never addressed, it's always this hand-wavy explanation that a route is somehow found, on a network that changes, potentially, thousands of times per seconds, and has tens of millions of nodes.


They are explicitly postponing the sophisticated routing solution until a later iteration, when we have more experience with how the network will become arranged.

It's not an omission, it was done this way on purpose.


No. The LN white paper doesn't even explain how they plan to solve routing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug8NH67_EfE&feature=youtu.be...

Without decentralized routing, It seems like they're simply prioritizing nodes with large sums of BTC as the central operator hubs.

Centralized payment processing hubs?


So like a Visa/Mastercard for Bitcoin? Probably not much to gain from that, I doubt it'll be more efficient than established networks (unless you want to deal in transactions that aren't allowed on those networks).


BCH, it should be noted, has nothing to do with Bitcoin other than appropriating the name...


That's an incredibly misleading statement, regardless of what side of the community you're aligned with.


And forking the BTC blockchain.


And the blockchain history.


And living up to Satoshi's original vision of a "purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash".


Not really. I think Monero has that mantle. Mining was supposed to be decentralised and the cash was supposed to be fungible.


Is Bitcoin Cash mining not decentralised?

https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/thisweek

Also I'm not sure what definition of fungible you are using that doesn't include Bitcoin Cash, but here's another spurious definition for you: A cryptocurrency isn't fungible if most wallets have balances that can't be spent because of fees.

https://www.newsbtc.com/2017/11/17/bitpay-ceo-claims-current...


The usual definition of fungible is that one coin (more precisely, one spend output) is as good as another (e.g., the same amount coming from a different UTXO) and they are not distinguishable from each other due to their provenance.

Put more simply, if the coins can be 'tainted' because they were transferred to you from a ransomware hoard then they're not fungible because a merchant could say: "I'm not taking those coins, I don't want to be associated with ransomware. You have to pay me with other coins."

Neither BTC nor BCH has this kind of fungibility, though Monero does.


I could see (some) merchants applying a blacklist to wallets that are known to be "evil" (as decided by some third party, somehow), but it's hard to imagine a non-negligible proportion of the bitcoin marketplace ever blacklisting all coins which have at any time in history been held by a ransomeware writer. The possibility of denying business to innocent customers is too great, and the benefits too small.

If some bizarre counter-productive legislation does come in requiring such a system for bitcoin, then yes, Monero might suddenly become more fungible in practice.


There is no "more fungible". It is either fungible or it isn't. Provenance can either be determined, or it can't. Sure there may be a degree of difficulty to determine provenance for some things, but if you cannot determine provenance at all, there is no degree.


"Fungible: being something (such as money or a commodity) of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in paying a debt or settling an account"

That definition doesn't mention provenance, even if I concede that something can't be "more (easily) determined" or "less (easily) determined".

My point is that if 99% of debts can, in practice, be paid (or transactions made) without either party paying any attention to the provenance of the coins, then the coins are fungible.

If there were reports of a significant number of a people being unable to transact because their bitcoins were blacklisted, then I would believe that bitcoin is significantly less fungible.

Whether that lack of fungibility is more significant than Monero's differing level of merchant adoption (for which I also don't have statistics) is then another question that a user has to weigh up.


It would be very unfortunate to be in that 1%, particularly if the implications were dire economically or for liberty. 1% is an enormous percentage. I personally wouldn’t even settle for 0.1%.


It isn't as decentralised as Monero. 5 pools control 60% hashrate for BCH, the top 5 XMR pools control 13% (Yuge difference). Also, Monero has a dynamic block size, so it is somewhat future proofed while BCH has another hardfork if it is successful. And fungible means that each unit of the currency is indistinguishable from another unit. BCH and Bitcoin both leave trails, therefore, are not fungible.


This is a really bad catchphrase by the bcash crowd because it sets up bcash as “electronic cash” vs btc “store of value”, when bcash is actually both, as in Satoshi’s vision. Shame bcash is spearheaded by such an untrustworthy team. Their argument is in the right but held back by poor tactics.


And support by the original developers of Bitcoin, for scaling by blocksize and exponential growth of computing, bandwidth, and storage.


and here i thought that scaling distributed systems is very hard problem. it turns out you just bump a number in configuration. quick, patent it and sell to google for billions!


We managed to scale the internet from dial-up to broadband without needing any hardcoded bitrate parameters imposed across the whole network. Bitcoin Cash seems to be doing just fine with its 8 megabyte blocks.


by "we managed" you mean the network of centralized gateways? because that's how internet works, just in case you didn't know.

we grew past the global scale fully connected topologies somewhere in late 80s if not earlier (i was in ussr kindergarden at that time, so please somebody correct me).

> Bitcoin Cash seems to be doing just fine with its 8 megabyte blocks

is it maybe because nobody is using it? :) blocks are 15 times smaller, tps is 10 times lower, USD transferred per day is 50 times lower.

gee, no wonder bitcoin cash is doing just fine, it's a copy of bitcoin and that kind of load is where bitcoin was couple years ago.


Having a two-tier system (if that's how you want to picture the internet) is still a valid way of scaling, as Satoshi said:

"At that stage, most users should start running client-only software and only the specialist server farms keep running full network nodes, kind of like how the usenet network has consolidated."

You're right that Bitcoin Cash usually has fewer transactions than Bitcoin Core, though, which alleviates scaling pressure. Similarly, now that people are switching to Bitcoin Cash and altcoins, that same scaling solution is working for Bitcoin Core too.

https://i.redd.it/wbpq99paw74z.png


> Having a two-tier system is still a valid way of scaling

you've basically described the motivation behind LN.

> Bitcoin Cash usually has fewer transactions than Bitcoin Core, though, which alleviates scaling pressure.

very nice spin ;)

> https://i.redd.it/wbpq99paw74z.png

correlation does not imply causation.

numbers are clear: 15 times more data, 10 times more transactions, 50 times more USD transferred. no altcoin is even close to that level of economic activity, even those with inflated tps numbers.


The blockchain is the history bro ...


No it isn’t bro, otherwise they would be the same. They are only the same from a specific block. There is a difference in being implicit and explicit.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: