Andreas Antonopoulos - Lightning Network

[bitbee99]

great video! the lightning network sounds great!

it sounds like a good solution to high fees

i'm looking forward to it

 

[adamstgbit]

it SOUNDS gr8, sure.
let's see if it holds up in RL before we put all our hopes and dreams in it shall we...

 

[AdrianX]

The 1MB limit forces miners to charge market prices for on chain transactions - it is a rule that allowed them to form a cartel to extract maximum value.

Miners are in control of the rules - that's the bitcoin design. We users are at a point in time when users must make a choice - we can change the design of bitcoin, be exploited and watch it die:

1. Keep the limit, let fees increase in relation to the value of transactions - limiting adoption to the size of the network today, user cases shrink as fees increase. Miners have a cartel - and a monopoly - miners can't break from the cartel because the rules don't awol it - bitcoin is at equilibrium.

2. Remove the limit, force miners to compete with each other and let the market determine fees, Competition for market share increase bitcoin security which in turn increases user demand which in turn increases demand for transactions resulting in a win win for the bitcoin network - more security more users. cartels imposing restrictions to increase fee pressure are broken by miners out competing them using economies of scale. (Miners must change the rules and remove the 1MB limit - BU is this choice for maximum growth atm)

3. Force miners to compete with layer 2 networks, (segwit +LN) mining cartels pushing up fees are held in check by users moving to layer 2 networks to transact. Free market competition among miners forces excess miner profit and user growth on to layer 2 networks. (less profit for miners to increase market share = less bitcoin security) demand to use layer 1 transactions increases when layer 2 fees are too high, and demand for layer 1 transactions decrees when fees are low. (the employers of the developers are in charge)

Option 1 - Do nothing has hardly any support.

Option 2 has the majority of miners and community support. (trade off = mining competition increases bitcoin security - bitcoin incentive design is not changed - miners must remove the limit - transaction fees drop - maximum growth potential)

Option 3 Has the majority of developers support (trade off = mining competition = Layer 2 growth at the expense of bitcoin security. - bitcoin incentive design must changed - miners must use new code - miners lose control of the network rules)

why should bitcoin holders support segwit + NL to reduce fees and degrade bitcoin security before we remove the block limit?

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

1. If it is absolutely trustless, why are people developing "watcher services" and
why did Adam propose insurances for hubs?

2. "You select the route with the lowest fee". "Onion routing".
Nobody knows how to find a route.

3. If it is "decentralized", how come that he is talking about hubs again?
(A word Maxwell and luke-jr avoid iirc)

I still miss the most basic understanding. Finding a route without centralized
hubs.

But decentralization is everything, right?

 

[AdrianX]

Here is a great talk by Andreas Antonopoulos, I wonder how he can be ignoring AXA and Blockstream.

He overlooks the essence of the first question - Layer 2 excluding the 80%, ignores the fact 80% of the world can't afford bitcoin. - he gets the standoff in this debate 100% correct in my opinion.