Bitcoin Q&A: Misconceptions about Lightning Network

[@AndrejDesignSats]

Im convinced Andreas is the best thing that ever happened to Bitcoin education.

[@impermanenthuman8427]

AndrejCibikDesign he seems to have the knowledge, patience and altruistic intent to bring about the most benefit possible for people

[@pskl]

me too

[@cipga]

Easily digestible information as Always. Andreas is amazing!

[@aayushijain6480]

You can also read this blog to know more about Lightning network - Lightning network, simply explained blog.coinswitch.co/what-is-bitcoin-lightning-network-6f6110e371ca

[@bretrobbins3150]

Love Andreas. He’s the best.

[@xcvsdxvsx]

I'm so tried of trying to explain these concepts to people who just refuse to get it. It's refreshing to have some place to go where the commentary doesn't make me want to pull my hair out. Thanks andreas. You are one of the only guys who actually knows what he is talking about.

[@FruitfulVineFarm]

Thank you, Andreas, for being such a great teacher.

[@robdcbtcinvestanduse5003]

Best detail of truth and meaning of concepts to the basic level, thanks. Degrees of centralization important to understand always beats limited hidden power.

[@rdouma]

Great stuff. You hit the exact sweet spot in terms of pace and technological details. Always a pleasure to watch your videos. Thanks for your service!

[@c.c.germaine9960]

Always a pleasure to hear from you Andreas. Thanks for all your hard work. Hope to see you in Vancouver again soon. Your last visit was inspiring.

[@photogol]

Hello Andreas, I learn a lot from your KZbin videos and I enjoy being a subscriber of your channel. I do photography as a hobby, so I would like to suggest you to use a longer lens for your video posts, as the wide angle lens that you are using distorts your face in the videos. I know that the content is the most important element of your posts, but aesthetics always matter, I think. Optimally I would recommend a lens with a focal length between 50mm to 100mm for those close shots. Thanks again for your work in the crypto space. Guillermo

[@pedrogorilla483]

I'd like to see a debate between Andreas and Roger Ver.

[@an.unarmed.civilian]

I'd also like to see a wrestling match between Andre the Giant and WeeMan.

[@pedrogorilla483]

Unfortunately I don't think Andreas does debates.

[@CARUSAR21]

Roger would flip out in 5 mins and flip off Andreas...

[@findnic420]

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

[@findnic420]

Compared to Andreas on bitcoin? Yes i do.

[@LondonTradeExchange]

Thank you for your desire to share yourcomprehension with us. I appreciate your generosity.

[@sandymilne224]

Well done. 2021 and just starting my knowledge of Lightning.

[@soundman1233]

Thanks for the explaining! Excellent!

[@NeilAC78]

Finally 3 years on we have details on what a lightning rollout looks like in El Salvador. Strike is a custodial wallet using only authorised Strike LN nodes. We do have indeed a Bitcoin based centralized banking system being imposed upon a nation.

[@fusion610]

Wlexcept it was shown that you can send a payment from strike to any other non custodial lightning wallet. Thus was shown a few days ago

[@MelroyvandenBerg]

Indeede maybe Bitcoin Cash isn't so bad after all.

[@rfeng5734]

you are a pioneer in history of human kind , keep up your great contributions never stop

[@duncanfirth]

Thank you! for explaining it. I now understand lightnight network much more clearly.

[@samacumen]

Thanks for your honest (as always) clarifications on Lightening network and centralization. You steered the path for my thoughts in the right direction.

[@CARUSAR21]

Epic as always thanks Andreas!

[@followthesunshine4082]

Andreas, thank you for your exceptional detailed and uplifting information on BTC & blockchain.

[@RandomNoob]

I don't necessarily think there is much misconception but there is a lot of purposely misleading information

[@Benna-pu3nb]

Random Shit - ahmen!

[@lefullhouse]

Andreas, I really enjoy your videos. You express yourself very well and everything is clear. I also enjoy the fact that you give your opinions on things and don't say "This is the way it is and everything else is wrong". BUT, to think that the internet is "open" and that people are free to do what they want is pushing it. I have a hard time believing that you truly believe that.

[@aantonop]

It's not all free, it's not all controlled. It's a mix of both, with a lot of wiggle room. The Internet is where bitcoin was born. It was free enough to birth a radical new currency. The internet is everything from Facebook to the dark web. There's a lot there that is very open and free

[@EmilyRose0]

Did I just watch a bitcoin video and ended up with knowing how onion routing (TOR) actually works?

[@aantonop]

What! Awesome!

[@techsavvy8155]

@@aantonop I love TOR and Bitcoin they are game changer , no censorship no middle man . No limitation.

[@FuzzImp]

While listening to your talks, I put on super dramatic EDM and sometimes when you're making a good point it lines up with the drops well.

[@fredrikmyhre6254]

xD lol

[@davidcarbon9771]

You would like friends if satoshi channel

[@HyruleDude]

Hahaha that is hilarious ! BOOOOOOOOOM :)

[@davidcarbon9771]

King Bitcoin with lightning network will bring crypto to the masses...true decentralization.

[@dukeofkircaldy]

You are a global treasure. Thank you for what you bring to the community.

[@jonathanhirshfield3332]

thanks for the great video. I am in crypto for years, and this is the first time I think I understand LN. :)

[@toutl]

Hi Andreas.... Q1. wont the associated encryption of onion tor routing make it hard to retrieve lost funds should something go pear-shaped mid-path during transmission? Q2. wont the bigger risk to node operators come from hackers rather than the regulatory authorities, thus node operators will be discouraged from launching nodes from fear of funds being stolen? What security measures can be implemented? Q3. what are the financial incentives to operate a lightning node? How do node operators earn commissions?

[@igorgrbaslijev8593]

One of the best videos about crypto on YT.

[@MTJ8911]

Thank you thank you thank you. Achievement unlocked!

[@BestMentalism]

Thanks for the clarifications. I have one question, you say that a node knows the whole topology so that it can construct a routing path, that means that all nodes know about all the open channels and their value if I understand this right. But does they also know about their IP so that they can send them the transaction, which would mean that you know how much money all specific IP addresses have ? Which would make them hot targets for governments if they want to stop it

[@RedShiftedDollar]

Your answers to why lightning node operators don’t need to adhere to AML KYC regulations are ridiculous. Just because an individual can download and run this banking software does not magically make them more difficult to charge with financial crimes. You act like millions of people will run these nodes and the police can’t arrest them all. You’d be surprised how quickly these operators will voluntarily resign once they see a few of their friends get prison sentences.

[@linrono]

"Glitzy graphics and high production values." Lmao! Savage.

[@IamPsybo]

Thanks for straightening that up!

[@christo2690]

Hi Andreas You say the wallets under development will auto establish channels. Do you think they will include a penalty for a neighboring node when it has too many channels? i.e. When I establish a channel with Bob does his wallet advertise how many channels he has? I think centralization can be automatically prevented if nodes only advertise themselves when they have less than 20 channels open for example. From 1-19 channels they can put a compounding negative metric on them (something like an AS-PREPEND in BGP that does a +1 "AS" per open channel) which would systematically make them establish less and less neighbors. A neighbor can advertise its availability based on a metric of its asking tx fee and open channels. Just food for thought.

[@kdanagger6894]

5:55 Andreas does not think that Lightning will form into a centralized hub and spoke system. Unfortunately, history and experience tells us that if the potential for centralization is present, it WILL happen. The is the fatal flaw of Lightning networks. We can do the experiment, but the outcome is determined by human actions that are entirely predictable at a large scale.

[@codymiller8505]

Why do you need a hub? that's not how it works.....

[@kdanagger6894]

@@codymiller8505 Because of the absolutely enormous number of payment channels (with sufficient funding) that would need to exist simultaneously in order to complete most transactions. Hubs will need to be created to provide the shortest (and perhaps only) path. There is nothing in the Lightning network protocol that prevents or discourages the formation of hubs. Hubs are points that are inherently centralized - and are therefore NOT trustless. The clearest analog of Lightning network hubs is BANKS. Banks were originally created to make transacting in Gold easier - more convenient. They took Gold transactions "off-chain" by allowing people to do transaction settlements with paper (golds/silver certificates) , and then with no backing whatsoever. This eliminated the high overhead of transporting gold. They immediately saw the opportunity to CHEAT, because the majority of transactions never involved the physical transfer of the gold. Now we have Bitcoin core devs fighting to keep Bitcoin block sizes small and transaction fees high, which completely discourages small transactions. As Bitcoin gains greater adoption by the financial industry, the common person will find it completely cost prohibitive to do even medium sized transactions. Nobody except the banks (following the lead of BlockStream) will be doing-on chain transactions. Virtually all other transactions will be forced onto a centrally controlled settlement layer such as Lightning hubs. We will have come full circle. Bitcoin is poised to follow the same path that physical Gold did. I am totally convinced that we need to retain decentralization at all costs. Bitcoin is in the process of being corrupted. Only the really big players will benefit. I'm gradually moving my Bitcoin into what I hope are some of the most promising ALT's. Litecoin has stood the test of time. BitCoin Cash also looks good. Both have very low transaction fees and don't require side-chains (yet). Ether looks terrible right now because of extremely high gas fees. Nano is *very* interesting technically, but I'm waiting to see if it catches on more. I'm not a fan of "staked" coins because early adopters get most of the mining rewards. I think of them as Ponzi schemes which probably won't withstand the test of time.

[@mikerizzyraw]

this was an excellent explanation, i can vision each step as you speak it.

[@patrik5123]

I wish someone would volunteer their time in order to increase the production value of your videos, because even though they are very good and informative, people respond better when there's graphics, graphs and whatnot. I am NOT skilled enough, unfortunately.

[@yuriyarin4027]

Andreas' popularity further confirms my hypothesis that the next step to crypto adoption is education. People want to know how Bitcoin works or at least that a family member or friend they trust does.

[@HaraldSchilly]

I don't understand why there are 100 or more downvotes. What are your arguments?

[@MVrockersPS3]

Paper notes are more convenient than physical gold in every way and there are literally no downsides to paper notes that are 100% backed by gold. Lightning is just a cryptographic secured note backed by Bitcoin. Makes sense to me.

[@levansegnaro4637]

yea until those banks dont have the gold for the amount of notes they issued.

[@dzlcrd9519]

Chum That's why you can't create LN tokens out of nothing

[@klodian6585]

Thank you for all the efforts you put into blockchain project.

[@honestmicky]

Thanks Andreas for another great video, much appreciate my brother : )

[@dangstonssupervaruhus7584]

Excellent and informative as always. Thank you!

[@sigmarecon]

Mind = Blown! Keep doing God's work Andreas! There's a reason the community made you a Bitcoin millionaire over night. Humility = Success

[@punklave]

You cleared my mind up. Thanks

[@WeeSmokey]

The man who can Andrea's the giant of crypto

[@twado1]

Thank you for your informative video!

[@cryptoqueene]

I respect your work but in my experience and experiment Jaxx was a no go, Sir. Comment?

[@MelroyvandenBerg]

Well. 4 years later we do have LN vulnerabilities. An we have Lightning hubs, causing centralization within the network as well. As you said we might reconsider Bitcoin Cash for payments on layer 1 again. No follow-up from you? What are your thoughts?

[@justinjoylife]

Thank you so much. I saw that video too and was scared. I’m wondering will LN reduce fees for a simple one time transaction? Or in that case is it all the same?

[@_nske]

It wouldn't reduce the fees for a simple one time transaction that you choose to verify on the blockchain, what it would do is make choosing to verify it on-chain something that you will not have to do often in most cases. If everyone you want to transact with participates in the LN and they haven't tried to cheat you, you have little reason to resolve the state of your channel on the blockchain after just one transaction.

[@an.unarmed.civilian]

doing the lords work Andreas!

[@hargislogan]

I love the logo! So cool!

[@thanhnguyenvan266]

Which incentivizes the intermediaries to route transactions to the right destination? What if the intermediaries do not have enough bitcoin in their ballance?

[@masterbonzala]

One of the concerns with the lightning network that I had was that it could potentially be intercepted by governments and turned into some kind of gold-standard dollar that could degenerate into the current fiat system. That does not seem like a possibility now that I understand how it works

[@MelroyvandenBerg]

well it does seems to go into that direction too bad

[@MrJti8899]

I use to listen to Andreas to understand how crypto will make me fiat free, now he is only my go to source for how segwit and lightning hope to work. Let the experiments expose the truth. I will be watching this one from on chain. Take care of yourself sir, you're looking rough around the eyes.

[@jwahab]

Using source routing with a small number of users seems okay for now, but how will this system scale to billions of users? "The node that starts a payment receives information about all of the available channels out there, and the capacity the each channel has, and the fee each channel has..." I'm trying to understand how this will work. What dynamic routing protocol does it use, and to what extent does this extra factor of channel capacity effect it? Also how long does it take for the source to calculate this path? I understand your point with the onion routing and everything else after that but can you please explain the earlier step of routing and how exactly that works?

[@aantonop]

The routing used today is not the routing that scales to billions of people. Routing is a whole separate field of study and there are a number of research projects working on a variety of routing algorithms. It is important to understand that routing is not part of The Lightning Network specification. The network can have many different routing algorithms operating "within" it, which can change over time. Just like on the Internet, which has several routing protocols that have evolved over time. Routing is not part of the TCP/IP specification either.

[@Schoolship.]

Great Vid!

[@DigestYourselfTM]

@aantonop what do you think about EOS? and will it make Ethereum obsolete? How would the token migration unfold? Steem works great. Bitshares needs more volume but is excellent. Now the EOS operating system.. It seems like Dan is one step ahead of everyone.

[@SimpMcSimpy]

I started developing dapp on EOS and it is such great experience. I am big fan of DPOS (Yes, free transactions is the way forward). Don't forget you will hear many negative claims against Dan Larimer. All comes from PoW mafia. The fact we have better solution (DPOS - no mining) is huge risk against their expensive mining companies. Isn't interesting that two most active and used chains (Steem and BitShares) are rarely mentioned anywhere.

[@iloveutubealotandmor]

Hello Andreas. I am huge fan of you. Could you pleas have a look at the below question: I am very new to Bitcoin and I have limited understanding of the technology. I wonder if introducing random selection can work to improve speed and scalability. The idea here is to make the difficulty of solving the mathematical puzzle less difficult and produce more blocks and then introduce random selection by the protocol to select successfully verified blocks instead of waiting for longer chain to be formed. If this approach will work then it will achieve the followings: Faster speed and improve scalability. More decentralization since you do not need extremely powerful mining hardware. Needless to say, this will create less incentive for miners since it is not enough to be only faster, you need some luck as well since randomness is introduced. However, still you need to be very fast in producing blocks to increase your chance of winning. Do you think such approach will be workable or it is completely nonsense for any technical reasons. I appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks

[@cerberusvt3587]

Andreas what do you think about lightning network could cause a centralization? Since it breaks with the established in the white paper of Satoshi Nakamoto, bitcoin does not need intermediaries, but the channels are managed by users who act as intermediaries.

[@aantonop]

That is not true. You do not need "intermediaries" nor do you trust "intermediaries" to use LN. LN is entirely trustless. I predict that we will actually see a massive increase in decentralization because of LN. Our choice is not between "on chain" and "off chain". 80% or more of all transactions already happen "off chain", on private databases owned by exchanges and merchant processing systems. LN allows us to move all that to "off chain" that is trustless, which is closer to SN's vision and more decentralized that what we have today. No amount of block size increases can ever make bitcoin scale on-chain, without massively centralizing it.

[@cerberusvt3587]

His answer has solved many doubts, thank you very much

[@heinodersanger9809]

Question regarding the described source routing: How does the sender node know the whole route, especially when there are many users/transactions and the causing the state of the network to change rapidly?

[@armenvardanyan5494]

Thank you for the video! This video does not contradict the content of "How the Banks Bought Bitcoin" does it? They simply have two different philosophies about how the end result will look and who will be in control?

[@aantonop]

It does contradict it in many ways. Several of the "facts" stated in that video are false. Yes, they also predict two different outcomes. But one starts with erroneous assumptions, to carefully fit a specific narrative.

[@Textras]

Great Q&A!

[@P2Pbase]

like an OSPF - Open Shortest Path First. except the hops needs to have at least enough funds on it. okay, I got it

[@greekcy75]

Andrea, maybe I'm not understanding lightning network well, but how does lightning network prevent double spend transactions?

[@jak3264]

Doublespending technically means to broadcast transactions spending at least one transaction output which has already been spend by different transaction that is still waiting to get confirmed. LN payment do not broadcast anything in standard protocol. Participants just exchange various versions of signed, multisig time-locked transaction following trustless protocol. The only way to attack someone is to actually broadcast some old channel-state which is unfavourable for the attacked individual. This is perfectly possible but if that happens, the Multisigs and time-locks are set in a way that such transaction can be preferably spent by the attacked person before the time-lock elapses and thus moving every single satoshi into one's own wallet so that the attacker will lose all his money inside that channel. All participants are therefore incentivised not to cheat and broadcast outdated old channel states.

[@reijin90]

because you essentially send transactions between eachother that are signed by both parties, which serve as an agreement. If one party wants to cash out, they can do that by posting the appropriate transaction to the blockchain. Stealing funds is also not possible as timelocks prevent the user who is paying the other user from sending a refund. Think of it like this: 1. we create a funding transaction (e.g. 1 BTC) to the blockchain (you do this). This transaction can be redeemed by a transaction signed by both parties (e.g. you and a shop) or a refund transaction with a time lock. This timelock prevents you from claiming your original funding (1BTC) for a certain amount of time. This means, that if both of you can't find an agreement offchain, you can still get your money back. But: If you find an agreement offchain, this agreement is signed by both of you and can be used to spend the funding transaction (1BTC). Say, you want to send 0.5 BTC to B off chain, you create a transaction that states "0.5BTC to me and 0.5BTC to Shop", you sign it and send it to the shop. The shop can then claim the funding transaction by posting this transaction we created before to the blockchain. This can go on and on (if the channel is unidirectional - oneway). For a bidirectional channel you must create nested timelocked transactions so you or the shop can't refund the transaction. The advantage is, that all these small payments in between are offchain and don't require fees and also don't fill up new blocks of the blockchain. tl;dr: bascially you do everything like you do on the Blockchain, but offchain and with addtional safety percautions.

[@reijin90]

YourTV Unplugged You don't understand how this works at all, but you say it's insecure - great. Let me tell you something: Trusting anyone (e.g. your Bank) is insecure, that's why we have BTC - Cryptographic principles ensure security between parties! And just because a transaction happens offchain doesn't mean it's insecure. Read my post and you will (hopefully) understand how it works. Here is the important bit: You technically don't send BTC to anyone except for the amount agreed upon to the person who has the secret key (which can only be the one you want to send to). And the agreement still happens with the same principles like on the Blockchain (public and private key).

[@canericacanada]

Apreciate your knowledge. what do you think about Electroneum's new patent. A pay system similar to a visa or mastercard. Instant pay system . would apprecieate your insight.

[@coinborg8305]

Bitcoin is THE coin.

[@geraldbmullen4386]

Let'sPlay

[@brianpendez5340]

Let'sPlay Well said my friend. It's refreshing to hear somebody talk some actual sense here in KZbin comments. The Lightning network sounds like such a mess waiting to happen. The fact that transactions are processed off the blockchain defeats the whole purpose of Bitcoin. Do people not realize that most of the hype about Bitcoin is utilizing blockchain so we don't need any middlemen and now we're going away from that?! Wake up people ahhhhhh!!!

[@Schoolship.]

umm, Lightning isn't finished yet, when it goes mainstream it'll be secure... not sure what you mean by centralized, did you watch the video? the clear easy to understand answer to your statement about centralization starts at 12:12.

[@blognewb]

*You idiots, the transactions in Lightning will go BACK to the on-chain Bitcoin blockchain once the channels close up. You noobs deserve to lose your money to shill-coins because Bitcoin is not going away. The only way blockchains can scale is via 2nd layer OFF chain protocols whose transactions will get back on chain after awhile regardless. Such is the implementation in Ethereum AS WELL via Plasma.*

[@seaSwann]

except LN hasnt gone live... because the devs are competent unlike most shitcoints (alts) aka ETH aka Parity aka DAO aka hacked multiple times from live code published by the core devs AKA russian vitalik

[@seanslack8819]

Nano FTW!

[@denimlabels7315]

The voice of Bitcoin

[@caprabianca2362]

Andreas do you see Bitcoin as a micro-insta-payments currency in the future or it will keep being just a store of value?

[@Slabble]

Do u see there ever being a need to add granularity to BTC? Like say if the price of one BTC becoming more than 10000$

[@anarchic_ramblings]

Finally, He speaks.

[@adnjoo]

Lightning is the same old hub and spoke system as the legacy financial system.

[@codymiller8505]

Except it isn't.

[@ahm951]

Thanks for the valuable content and I hope you can make a video about Nano coin.

[@stevesmith4166]

This is an old video, but I have recently set up a raspiblitz lightning node. I too thought that you had to have a payment channel to the person you wanted to pay. Where is the best place to start to learn more about lightning? The build guide was good, but I am now left thinking ‘now what?’

[@karleisheim8043]

My question: There will always be people losing their private key or dieing without anybody knowing their private key to access their bitcoins. If the overall supply decreases over time, wouldn't that be a problem for the future of bitcoin?

[@_nske]

Due to its huge divisibility, that would just translate into slightly inflated value. If that divisibility proves not enough for practical purposes at some point, it could be increased further. I would think that the amount of funds lost that way will be a tiny fraction and the rate would be pretty stable across time, so it shouldn't cause a measurable disturbance. Also if/when usage of Bitcoin picks up longterm, I'm pretty sure people will care enough to ensure that their money are not lost -there are many ways to do that and they will become more easy with time.

[@traderteam9358]

excelent, magistral

[@gillypoof]

Hmmm,I,ll feel a song comin on, "the world is just a big,big onion" yep

[@MasterNeiXD]

Great video, Andreas. Would it be possible to run Lightning Network nodes without any BTC on them? With the only propose of creating more routes.

[@kbasali]

yes in testnet

[@MasterNeiXD]

kerem basali That's not the same thing. I meant in case someone just wanted to help the network with computing power and connection without locking away their BTC.

[@BrooksBoyd426]

Yes; if you have no BTC, you still have the option of someone else creating a channel to you, and them allocating some of their funds to you. This may be a service offered by businesses for people just getting started with BTC; you pay them fiat, and they create the payment channel and allocate the funds to you.

[@machtundrebel3127]

Bryan Keller Not really. The node can have 0 Balance, but not the channels. Firsy of all, a channel is created with an on-chain transaction, which needs an amount. But mostly, an empty channel won't help the network in any way, because it couldn't participate.

[@MasterNeiXD]

macht rebel I mean, it could still route payments, though. It wouldn't be useless. But yeah, I had forgotten you could no longer make 0 btc transactions.

[@jorgecontreras8566]

Thank you for everything a true legend Andreas :)

[@ezioauditore9585]

Question: Would the final hop (destination node) know who is the originator of this transaction?

[@SAL-fs1mr]

No.

[@violetmilan602]

Will the transactions be cheaper?Because from my undestanding you pay fees on lightning and then on first layer blockchain so it sound like it will be more expensive for one time use and less expensive maybe if i do multiple transactions on lightning?

[@_nske]

The concept is that you will perform large numbers of transactions through each LN channel (which is fine as they can be towards varying parties and at different times) before you settle your balance on the Blockchain. There is no point in using LN to perform a single transaction, ever, as that would be indeed more expensive.

[@Paviste93]

I like the way how Andreas describes everything but I still think he did not provide any real answers why the Hubs are NOT a risk for centralization. The only argument he gave is that it is dangerous since a Hub holding a lot of value might become a target for hackers but in an ideal scenario there is no attack surface in the Lightning Network. So I wouldn't call this a real argument. Does someone else have arguments that counter the centralization claims? Would love someone to change my view on this

[@MelroyvandenBerg]

4 years later.. and we do have big hubs now in LN. So... maybe BCH wasn't that bad after all?

[@tc2948]

Would it help to avoid bitcoin centralization if all who have bitcoin operate a full node?

[@Randomguydrm]

Centralization not per se but would make it even harder to kill the blockchain. I will set up my own soon

[@Diogenes_the_Dog]

Out of curiosity Anntonop are you a Kantian?

[@MrVictorchase]

If the original Bitcoin Whitepaper had been the invention of the Lightning Network, would it have been as important as the on-chain protocol it actually was? Does Lightning Network enable trustable transactions between strangers?

[@_nske]

Yes, LN enables trustable transactions between strangers, however it does so within its own context and having different rules and restrictions. It is designed to work on top of another layer that takes care of different problems for which it "knows" nothing about, so it can't replace Bitcoin any more than IP can replace Ethernet.

[@levansegnaro4637]

from what i understand LN is like a hot wallet, only as safe as the server its on.

[@kalmahamlak]

Shit, I watched the entire video at 2X and then had to rewatch all over again for comprehension.

[@pleb_tech]

this is a fucking awesome explanation (excuse my french)

[@raydaugherty7279]

These channels that have value locked up in them sound eerily like Nostro/Vostro accounts that the banks have to deal with now...

[@davidbradley2316]

On chain scaling it's much easier for noobs. It is senseless to lock your money up in the network, constantly opening channels, and locking more into the network. What are the pros of LN because I only see cons. With many other cryptos I can send instantly and almost free. What would incentivize me to lock up money I need in the LN?

[@taylorj6177]

What are your thoughts on... HASHGRAPH?!?

[@FredoCorleone]

does the destination node know where the "unwrapped onion" come from?

[@aantonop]

Yes

[@th4fl4sh4]

I would like to know what Andreas thinks about some alt coins with very different use cases such as IOTA, VeChain or Golem.

[@fabianculot3828]

The routing system basicly sounds like the way OSPF and/or EIGRP works. Right?

[@professorsenn3839]

basically

[@MrFreeGman]

What's the incentive to bother with something like LN rather than just using something that was built to fix those problems from the ground up? Seems like brand loyalty more than anything else.

[@machtundrebel3127]

MrFreeGman Which Blockchain provides scalability to millions/sec, without bloating the blockchain, all while increasing anonymity?

[@BrooksBoyd426]

The Lightning Network IS "build to fix those problems from the ground up"; that's the point.

[@MrFreeGman]

macht rebel The LN is not a blockchain so comparing its TPS to blockchains is like comparing the fuel efficiency of cars and bicycles. It's a centralized layer 2 solution that defeats the whole point of the blockchain (guess who's going to be providing a significant chunk of the backbone for the network if it ever takes off as an actual currency - banks!) Moreover, millions/sec is more than overkill and just a useless propaganda point. Visa is capped at about 20k tps and that capacity is still never hit. That said, there are numerous blockchains that can rival the every day performance of Visa. For example, Steem, Nano, Stellar, Ripple, Neo, EOS

[@_nske]

a) The LN is not blockchain, but the balance can be concluded at any point on the blockchain, with the consent of any one of the two parties involved. At the same time, this is a system where anyone can be a node and a node cannot compromise funds. How is that centralised? Can you provide one example where this combination of properties would not be enough? b) Millions/sec is not overkill when the concept of microtransactions is realized by the markets. Think real-time charges of services per second.

[@MrFreeGman]

nske What happens when someone decides to arbitrarily close your payment channel, or charge you unreasonable amounts of money to open one? What happens if the government decides they want to blacklist you from all known payment channels? Or that they want to blacklist all "unsanctioned" channels? Remember, the people who run these channels are going to be establishment, as there is a large overhead cost involved, much more so than simply running a full bitcoin node. Governments and banks - they will ultimately be in control of who uses LN and how, just like the current banking system. The whole point of the blockchain was to avoid these sorts of scenarios and give you back control of your own money.

[@corykong6510]

So, you need to open at least 4-5 channels with high fees just to be able to send payments via lightning network? I downloaded Bitcoin Lightning Network wallet, and I had to pay 20$ just to open one channel. Will this still the same case in the future? 20$ for each channel? That's really high. Somebody enlighten me. :D

[@gWOLF3onYT]

how to prevent double spends within LN?

[@Steleet22]

How does LN combat Sybil attacks?

[@benotafraidceo5287]

hi, can someone receive payment if offline? since you need to open a channel to receive payment i would suspect that the answer is no

[@amazingbobo1]

Andreas can you address the issues brought by Rick Falkvinge (Rick reacts) ?

[@bomeyer1964]

Need a link to the video mentioned in the first question.

[@WeAskToAI]

I have a fair question: how fees works on LN? Who benefits from them?

[@_nske]

The nodes can set any fees that they want to facilitate transactions that pass through them. Of course the sender can choose which nodes to route from, so can choose the cheapest path. Anyone can set a node with very small operational costs, so it is reasonable to expect that competition will drive these fees low.

[@dobe4ever]

nske, blockstream is the company developing the LN. They are the ones charging fees to ppl who want to use btc, come on now. Are you serious you dont know this?

[@_nske]

dobe4ever This is so nonsense that I hope you're trolling. Just in the off chance that you are not, or for those that you might confuse, LN is an open protocol, there are multiple implementations being worked on, one of which is from Blockstream (not that it's of any relevance). Anyone can set a node that follows that open protocol using any software he wants and serve as a node, charging fees or not charging fees -whatever he wants. The only way Blockstream can charge fees, is by doing whatever everyone else can do.

[@dobe4ever]

do you know the name of those multiple implementations being worked on, other than blockstream?

[@_nske]

Besides Blockstream, ACINQ, Lightning Labs and MIT DCI also work on their own implementations. github.com/ACINQ/eclair github.com/lightninglabs github.com/mit-dci/lit