Hacker News Reader

Comment by r32a_ | Hacker News Reader

Wrong. Bitcoin will use Lightning Network for most everyday transactions and it's speed is only limited by network liquidity and bandwidth

View on HN

Too bad you still need to use the blockchain to get into and off of the LN. which means if BTC got widely adopted you’d still run into major scaling limits. Of course that is assuming LN will ever exist. Which it won’t. It “exists” only a way for shysters to dodge the “bitcoin can’t scale” question when pitching the blockchain to the next batch of rubes.

Also, there is a certain unavoidable irony in suggesting the way to scale bitcoin is to avoid using it.

Genuinely curious: Does the lightning network provide all of the same guarantees that the standard Bitcoin network provides? What are the downsides? Why isn't the lightning network used all the time instead of the Bitcoin protocol?

Lightning is new, so that's part of the adoption story. It suffers from a centralization risk similar to banks (viz a viz using a well-connected intermediary via a wide channel to transmit to arbitrary addresses off chain with less pain that establishing a dedicated channel directly).

The downside is that there is no market for watchtowers yet (so you need be online while having channels open).

Another disadvantage is that if you control your key, you must be online. Like, if you run an HTTP server, you must have a machine. With plain Bitcoin you can spend to a pubkey and it doesn't have to be online

Having to be online to be secure is a pretty big hole, don’t you think? Sure you could outsource it to some trusted party, but that feels awfully bank-like and I thought bitcoin was all about being your own bank. Am I wrong?

Watchtowers are not trusted parties and you do not have to be always online to be secure. There is a configurable period where you can broadcast a revocation transaction. Watchtowers can do it for you but it's designed so they cannot frame you. The penalty for broadcasting an out of date transaction is loss of all funds in the channel.

To summarize.

1. Attacks are extremely unlikely in the first place.

2. Watchtowers can prevent them if they do happen.

3. Watchtowers are trustless. They in no way resemble banks.

4. Without a watchtower you are not required to be always online to be secure.

If I am not online and don't use a watch tower, how is the breach remedy transaction published in time?

How does the transaction appear on the blockchain if you're not online?

If you are not online, you can't receive or send at all (this is why I said "Another disadvantage")

The channel state appears on the blockchain once either party closes the channel.

It requires some additional investment on the user's part.

Think of it like opening a secured credit card with cash. Faster and more convenient to use, since you can now use the credit card networks instead of the cash, but requires tying up the funds you want to use to pay with.

Also, the merchant/recipient has to be able to accept the payments, and the software is new / in beta still.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com