Create account

· 79d
#LN on BTC is an inherently flawed idea with no economic thought behind it whatsoever.

This is why liquidity providers start to leave already (too much risk for a non-existent reward).

#Bitcoin #LightningNotwork #LN
x2dm
replied · 79d
Disagree. I have believed in the potential of networked payment channels since Mike Hearn's work circa 2013. Properly applied, it makes perfect sense, economically and technically.
x2dm
replied · 79d
The only problem is, the Core people are using it wrong. They want LN to pretty much replace Bitcoin's functionality, which it cannot possibly do.
x2dm
replied · 79d
Networked payment channels could be a great supplement to Bitcoin. They're useful for very small microtxs (on the order of <1cent), especially recurring txs, e.g. paying for pageviews.
x2dm
replied · 79d
Even with the very low fees we now have on BCH, there is no need to do EVERYTHING on-chain. Very small txs are impractical even with 1 sat/B fees.
x2dm
replied · 79d
Imagine the LN, if nobody ever dreamed of using it for moving more than a couple of cents. There would be no liquidity issues, ever. Anyone with $10 could be a "liquidity provider"...
x2dm
replied · 79d
High-degree, high-liquidity hubs would be far more decentralized. You wouldn't need watchtowers, since the risk of channel theft would be meaningless when channels contain just cents.
x2dm
replied · 79d
Now couple that with low on-chain fees, so channels could be opened and closed much more easily and frequently, and the risk/liquidity barriers become quite negligible.
x2dm
replied · 79d
LN has limited use-cases, but is not inherently flawed. I hope we will have it on BCH one day, because here it can actually work!
replied · 78d
It is inherently flawed on a ***crippled blockchain***
x2dm
replied · 78d
Ok, turns out we do agree! I thought you were aiming at LN in general, but you did say "LN on BTC"...
replied · 78d
Interesting view. I'm starting to think more positively about LN.
replied · 78d
LN is good for nano/micro-payments on non-limited blockchain.

The Coretard LN project is pure retardation.
replied · 78d
I don't think that you disagree. It is flawed because it can't work on a crippled chain. I expanded on this afterwards.
replied · 79d
While I agree with you that payment channels have their uses, the LN incentive (PoS) model is inherently broken.
x2dm
replied · 79d
Incentive for what? For providing liquidity? Liquidity in payment channel networks is a non-issue. It only seems like a problem because the BTC people tried to use LN for txs of >$10.
replied · 79d
Yes.
Well, you're right about that I suppose. By the way, I think BCHD and Electron guys where actually working something.
x2dm
replied · 79d
Incentive for preventing channel theft? Almost irrelevant, assuming that being an LN hub is a repeat game, and every channel never holds more than a few cents.