32
33

Lightning Network Onion Routing Proposal (github.com)

EdsterGB が 投稿

全 27 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]metamirror 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

This electrifying news. Almost makes me want to cry.

[–]marcus_of_augustus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Blooming onions?

[–]Chakra_Scientist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can somene send colored coins, or a output the size of a satoshi, that represents an asset, over lightning network?

[–]untried_captain 7ポイント8ポイント  (13子コメント)

This Lightning Network summary will clear up some misconceptions going around without having to read the whole white paper. The biggest biggest misconception I've seen so far was Mike Hearn claiming that Lightning "isn't a realistic solutions to scaling from an engineering perspective."

[–]boxxa 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I do love the idea behind this project. As somone that enjoys token based apps on Bitcoin, I think we need a alternative than having people account for TX fees in the micropayment market.

[–]eragmus 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hey, how did you know about this (http://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf) link? I've never heard of it before, nor do I currently see it linked on the http://lightning.network homepage.

[–]untried_captain 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I snooped /u/starkbot's profile yesterday.

[–]eragmus 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ahh, good stuff :). The summary page is great! I don't know how current it is, but it should be constantly updated and maintained, and clearly linked on the main page. Most people are scared away when they see the technical draft white paper, and I can bet this contributes to many of the misunderstandings and misinformation floating around.

cc: u/rustyreddit, u/josephpoon

[–]starkbot 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

We'll to link it from the front page soon..we were still editing it. Luckily a redditor spotted a typo.

[–]drwasho 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

If you think that the LN will make raising the block size unnecessary at all, or even by only a little, then yes it is unrealistic.

Even settlement networks need substantially larger blocks to open and close micropayment channels at scale.

[–]thorjag 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

I believe raising the block size will be necessary, but if LN is successful the block size will only need to be a fraction of what it would have to be if all transactions were on the chain.

[–]randy-lawnmole 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Help me underestand why miners should not see LN as an attack on future profits, by taking fees offchain?

[–]djpnewton 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Changetip, exchanges... They all do offchain transactions (and take fees), are they an attack on miners profits?

[–]BTCisGod 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Demand for blockspace is the whole game, it is Bitcoins's (and by extension LN's) security model via fees.

LN can be as secure, fast and private as imaginable but it won't matter much if hardly anybody is hashing SHA-256.

[–]randy-lawnmole 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So restrictions on blocksize act as a valve to subvert the flow of transactions offchain and into LN or other channels? That sounds like an attack to me?

Edit: Think you must have added that second sentence as I was typing.
So if I understand correctly. For LN to be at maximum security, the main chain must have maximum security. Ergo If we trust in supply and demand to control average blocksize, and assume free movement of value between the LN and main chain. Then the LN network 'should ?' trend to a certain value % of the main chain, where Risk=Reward. Plucks figure out of R's, say 10% of the Bitcoin Blockchain value?

[–]eragmus 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you think that the LN will make raising the block size unnecessary at all, or even by only a little, then yes it is unrealistic.

Literally, nobody of import has EVER said block size does not need to be increased if LN is adopted. Ever.

Link me to a quote saying otherwise, if you disagree.

The draft white paper itself says numerous times that LN is not a substitute for raising block size, just simply that block size does not need to be raised nearly as much with LN vs. without LN.

[–]untried_captain 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nobody is saying that. It's a given that the Lightning Network will require a block size increase. The benefit to the whole network's transaction capacity is magnitudes greater than clumsily raising the block size to 8GB. Refusing to even acknowledge the Lightning Network as a realistic scaling solution is ill-advised.

[–]killjoy1x 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is great, I've said in the past that I didn't like the idea of Lightning Network because you send transactions to the recipient, being a big privacy flaw. But good ol' Blockstream team have already taken that into consideration ;)

I'd but happy to use the network if it had onion routing built in by default.

[–]GibbsSamplePlatter 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Payments are going to be ridiculously cheap already, so adding privacy on top is the biggest goal now.

[–]Chakra_Scientist 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

If CLTV CSV is deployed, when can we can using lightning? Anyone know?

[–]veqtrus 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

For Lightning it is preferable to have CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY actually.

Soft forks take about 6 months to activate.

[–]thorjag 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

In addition to CLTV we would need CSV (kind of a relative CLTV). And further down the line fix malleability, but this isn't strictly necessary to get a functioning LN deployed.

[–]GibbsSamplePlatter 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not yet. Relative CLTV is needed(Check Sequence Verify is how it's being done), and also malleability fixes. Probably others I forgot :)

Close though.

[–]dbthegimp 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fuck yes. My moneys getting an upgrade. I feel like Megaman X.

[–]xcsler 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm still having a hard time understanding how the LN would work in real life. Can someone give me a concrete example of the mechanics of a LN transaction if I wanted to buy a coffee at Starbucks? Thanks.

[–]veqtrus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wrote this explanation about how it works but maybe you would want something more specific?