Hacker News Reader

And if you go offline for a few hours, your peers can steal your balance (unless you entrust somebody else to monitor it for you, which has its own tradeoffs)

View on HN

So basically, it turns into a ridiculously complicated bank. That requires 42tWh of power waste (and growing) to function.

I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed. Let's build a solution that scales better on-chain and uses a more power efficient mining algorithm.

> uses a more power efficient mining algorithm

Thats axiomatically impossible. Its the amount of energy required, not nhashes/etc, that disincentivize an attacker from rewriting history.

Well, it's the financial cost required, which in PoW is a combination of energy and capital cost.

I think a combination of both is required for optimal results. Lightning is good enough for micropayments. On chain transactions are good for large payments. The only problem with on-chain scaling is that keeping a payment history for the entire planet is not really feasable. You have to somehow prune old data from the blockchain.

What are the trade offs to having say 100,000 other parties monitor your channel for you?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com