Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 08:14:59 AM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on February 14, 2017, 07:09:48 AM

Bitcoin's purpose was to eliminate 3rd party middlemen and IOU based fractional reserve banking, Yet, now they want to reintroduce both.

Bullshit. In the traditional sense of third parties and IOUs, there is always one party that can take away your control of the asset in question. This is not the case with LN, because it is decentralized. There will be things like LN hubs for sure, which people will argue that are centralized, but they only serve for better routing purposes.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 08:06:01 AM

'On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy scalings on top. '

Actually, it is exactly the opposite. Changes which provide on-chain scaling are the most insecure, as you can break the protocol. If you break some 2nd layer, the main protocol will remain functional.

LOL,

mail me some of what you are smoking, I like fantasy realities too.

If you think the opposite is true , why are you not just using a bank (fraction reserve banking) ,
Blockchain is the only thing that prevents fractional reserve & counterfeiting that can occur OFFCHAIN.

@Lauda, Do you even read the white papers or just talk out of your Butt all day?
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 49 thru 51 Wink

Quote

Improper Timelocks
Participants must choose timelocks with sucient amounts of time. If insuf-
cient time is given, it is possible that timelocked transactions believed to
be invalid will become valid, enabling coin theft by the counterparty. There
is a trade-o between longer timelocks and the time-value of money. When
writing wallet and Lightning Network application software, it is necessary
to ensure that sucient time is given and users are able to have their trans-
actions enter into the blockchain when interacting with non-cooperative or
malicious channel counterparties

Quote

9.2 Forced Expiration Spam
Forced expiration of many transactions may be the greatest systemic risk
when using the Lightning Network. If a malicious participant creates many
channels and forces them all to expire at once, these may overwhelm block
data capacity, forcing expiration and broadcast to the blockchain. The re-
sult would be mass spam on the bitcoin network. The spam may delay
transactions to the point where other locktimed transactions become valid

Quote

9.3 Coin Theft via Cracking
As parties must be online and using private keys to sign, there is a possibility
that, if the computer where the private keys are stored is compromised, coins
will be stolen by the attacker. While there may be methods to mitigate
the threat for the sender and the receiver, the intermediary nodes must be
online and will likely be processing the transaction automatically. For this
reason, the intermediary nodes will be at risk and should not be holding
a substantial amount of money in this \hot wallet." Intermediary nodes
which have better security will likely be able to out-compete others in the
long run and be able to conduct greater transaction volume due to lower
fees. Historically, one of the largest component of fees and interest in the
nancial system are from various forms of counterparty risk { in Bitcoin it
is possible that the largest component in fees will be derived from security
risk premiums.
A Funding Transaction may have multiple outputs with multiple Com-
mitment Transactions, with the Funding Transaction key and some Commit-
ment Transactions keys stored oine. It is possible to create an equivalent
of a \Checking Account" and \Savings Account" by moving funds between
outputs from a Funding Transaction, with the \Savings Account" stored
oine and requiring additional signatures from security services.