Comment by ptero | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ptero | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Sorry, I do not understand your comment. Can you clarify. What does "a lot more centralized in practice" mean?

> What's the point of it all in this case?

Lightning is an L2 protocol, highly scalable and used for low cost payment in Bitcoin. Level 1 networks are almost never used for user transactions: your credit card payments do not go over fedwire, etc. Bitcoin protocol is not scalable to serve worldwide money transfer needs; Lightning is. And with the cost of a penny per transaction or so.

> Why not just use regular currency?

There are a lot of frictions in the current banking systems, because money laundering, because drugs, because whatever. Getting $5-$10k in regular currency while on an overseas trip can be a major quest. With Lightning I can transfer that much (or more) in a few mouse clicks.

As a side note, I think the federales are already way too nosy regarding my use of my own money, so I want to give alternative options as much business as I can. My 2c.

Isn't it hard to use in practice? Liveness, inbound liquidity, moving funds between L1 and L2, don't all of those lead to massive use of hubs, this denying the entire premise of decentralization?

Very easy. If the merchant supports it, it is extremely easy; equivalent to pointing your phone at a reader to pay with GooglePay. Between people -- a QR or similar.

This doesn't answer my main concern. How do most people use Lightning? Do they operate on their own or use a big hub?

Sorry, and no offense intended, but can you be clearer? What exactly is your main concern that you allude to above? And how, in your view, the Lightning compares with the alternatives in that specific regards?

Most people who use Lightning do not operate their own nodes; same as with other payment methods -- credit card users do not operate their own payment networks, people writing checks do not operate their own banks, etc.

It feels like we are talking across each other and I just do not get it.

My point is that for legitimate payment uses Lightning (and all current cryptocurrencies) are useless. They were sold as the "democratization of finance" that will "help the world's poorest" and they either:

1. can't allow an single village to operate purely on them, because they're too slow

2. or they're not decentralized, and the entire "democratic" angle dies with that

And then what's the point of cryptocurrencies for most people? Why not just use the "tradfi" and "fiat currencies" and use the money propping up cryptocurrencies to actually make the world a better place?

If we shut down all current cryptocurrencies and diverted resources used to actual productive uses, the world would probably end up with a net gain.

I'm just ranting. I would want cryptocurrencies to be amazing but right now they seem useful for people with cyberpunks fetishes, for criminals, and rarely, for actual regular people from fragile states (not rich people trying to exfiltrate wealth).

> what's the point of cryptocurrencies for most people? Why not just use the "tradfi" and "fiat currencies"

Maybe because otherwise for a significant portion of the world population their own fiat is the only game in town. And it sucks so much that the regular people are willing to break laws and risk fines, confiscations and occasionally prison just for keeping their savings in anything else, like a neighbor country fiat. Their govvies use their fiat as a transfer mechanism (which makes saving impossible) and thus must discourage any other savings vehicle; otherwise no fool will use their fiat.

I saw fiat rug pull twice in my first 25 years: once as an instant nationalization (a friendly radio announcement one night that your money is ... well ... not a money anymore) and, later, a hyperinflation that over 2 years wiped out savings. And being found with a less sucky fiat at home meant jail.

I was just a kid, did not have any savings and thus did not care that much. But an older generation lost everything. So yes, a lot of people will gladly use anonymous, permissionless money, drawdowns and other warts included.

>Level 1 networks are almost never used for user transactions: your credit card payments do not go over fedwire, etc.

Fedwire isn't a "level 1 network", it's an entirely different service with different end users and goals in mind. ACH isn't an "L2 protocol", but does orders of magnitude more transactions per second than Bitcoin.

It's like cryptobros don't understand the basics of the systems they're attempting to replace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com