04-29-2020, 09:59 AM
Lightning Network Pls Explain
<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>Hi CC,</p> <p>I've been consuming everything available about the LN but it's unbelievably hard to follow. </p> <p>I'm lost in the following few arguments and can't tell which way is up or down:</p> <ul> <li>Some arguments say "why build a second layer to a crypto when you already have XYZ Coin that could do that x-years ago?" (or moreover, why not do what ETH did and consider adopting BCH as a data layer) (NOTE: I'm not advocating for ETH or BCH just merely using it as an example).</li> <li>Some arguments say LN makes BTC more centralized and out of line with the original intention of BTC (and more in-line with the current banking system structure).</li> <li>Some arguments say LN is slow, unreliable and untrustworthy. (Stories of lost BTC).</li> <li>A combo of the 2nd and 3rd points, some arguments suggest nodes can bias and charge more for messaging than other nodes but as a layman user one always wants the lowest fees there is no way a one can get "best execution" and figure this out, therefore, it seems like cartel'ing of nodes could be done to skew profits.</li> <li>Again, similar to the 1st point, why not change the MB block limit on BTC seeing as we're headed in the direction of quantum computing in the next couple of decades if not sooner. A Megabyte limit in a Terabyte/soon-to-be-Petabyte world seems sloppy. This would dampen the need for any second layers and beyond.</li> </ul> <p>I'm not arguing against LN -- I honestly have no idea what to think as LN is so opaque. </p> <p>I was wondering if there were any people who know more about LN and can cover both sides of the main arguments for-and-against LN; what the challenges are; what the potential is; and is it really worth everyone's time to develop something that BTC was originally intending to solve anyway?</p> <p>I appreciate it as I (and I'm sure many others) would love to learn more about it.</p> </div><!-- SC_ON --> Kind Regards R
<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>Hi CC,</p> <p>I've been consuming everything available about the LN but it's unbelievably hard to follow. </p> <p>I'm lost in the following few arguments and can't tell which way is up or down:</p> <ul> <li>Some arguments say "why build a second layer to a crypto when you already have XYZ Coin that could do that x-years ago?" (or moreover, why not do what ETH did and consider adopting BCH as a data layer) (NOTE: I'm not advocating for ETH or BCH just merely using it as an example).</li> <li>Some arguments say LN makes BTC more centralized and out of line with the original intention of BTC (and more in-line with the current banking system structure).</li> <li>Some arguments say LN is slow, unreliable and untrustworthy. (Stories of lost BTC).</li> <li>A combo of the 2nd and 3rd points, some arguments suggest nodes can bias and charge more for messaging than other nodes but as a layman user one always wants the lowest fees there is no way a one can get "best execution" and figure this out, therefore, it seems like cartel'ing of nodes could be done to skew profits.</li> <li>Again, similar to the 1st point, why not change the MB block limit on BTC seeing as we're headed in the direction of quantum computing in the next couple of decades if not sooner. A Megabyte limit in a Terabyte/soon-to-be-Petabyte world seems sloppy. This would dampen the need for any second layers and beyond.</li> </ul> <p>I'm not arguing against LN -- I honestly have no idea what to think as LN is so opaque. </p> <p>I was wondering if there were any people who know more about LN and can cover both sides of the main arguments for-and-against LN; what the challenges are; what the potential is; and is it really worth everyone's time to develop something that BTC was originally intending to solve anyway?</p> <p>I appreciate it as I (and I'm sure many others) would love to learn more about it.</p> </div><!-- SC_ON --> Kind Regards R