This 6-year-old critique of the Lightning Network made me realise there are fundamental problems we will never overcome. Is the Lightning Network a dead end in your opinion?
None of these things have been solved.
30 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 1 May
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @wopwopwopwop 1 May
deleted by author
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 1 May
The retard is you. LN is Bitcoin. Study how a HTLC works.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ca OP 1 May
HTLC is only a tiny fraction of LN. The majority of the complexity resides off chain. All its problems arise off chain.
Tolerating and addressing critiques is the only way to improve and become anti-fragile. Dismissing them and closing your eyes don't bring you closer to a solution bro.
reply
20 sats \ 2 replies \ @erict875 1 May
Great video. I really enjoyed watching...
My knowledge of the Lightning is a bit rusty, and admittedly insufficient, but when opening and funding a channel with another node, does the other node automatically become custodian of the fund, as he claims?
Could this be the reason why phoenix decided to leave the US market?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SpaceHodler 1 May
I thought it went to a 2-of-2 multisig? With some hashed timelock magic I'm not well versed in.
The traditional concept of ownership probably doesn't map onto the new reality created by Bitcoin. The state trash may need an upgrade.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @erict875 1 May
That's my understanding as well. I don't know the exact legal definition of custodianship, and don't understand how it would apply here, but possibly this is a grey area that needs clarification.
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @MiddleWay 1 May
He had an agenda. "BTC fork of Bitcoin" lol. The only problem I have running a lightning node for over two years is the database growth. So I should moderate the flow by not dropping my fees too low. The rebalancing model is of course the culprit of such an excessive traffic. I hope that Liquid dropping fees to 0.01 soon will make PeerSwap more popular.
FCs are a nuisance of course, but all are due to unreliable peers or bugs in the software, which are being gradually ironed out.
And no, a node is not a custodian of other people funds. A channel is owned by two nodes together, each one treats the other as an adversary and ready to punish for cheating.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @_stacktoshi 1 May
Oh, I thought you meant that dude sounded like a 6 year old. Yeah, I remember him, vaguely. He’s a big blocker, so of course LN was DOA six years ago. Seems to work great for me still, so I guess people did solve the problems he mentioned.
When I open a channel with someone, they have custody of my funds? They can rug??
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ca OP 1 May
Dunno bro, feels like every major LN app/company is being forced to exit the US market because of the issues mentioned in the video above.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @_stacktoshi 2 May
No, it doesn't seem that way. There was just one, and they did take custody of funds. There's no reason why people can't run lightning self-custodial-ly. Sure it's pretty technical to ramp up atm, but there are no unsolved technical hurdles to simplify that.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @bolander72 1 May
This was fantastic! Thanks for sharing.
reply