Quote from: fred21 on August 29, 2017, 06:13:20 PM

To those who are saying lightning network is bad :
1) Some people think that LN only lower fees for those who are doing a lot of transactions. If you stay in the lightning network a very long time, you will be able to do little transactions per unit of time and only paying once onchain transaction fee to get to the lightning network and once to get out. You will also pay for using lightning network every time you do a transaction but very little.
Even if Alice is doing one TX per month, If she stays 1 year in the channel, then, she will pay only once onchain transaction fee to get to the network and half onchain transaction fee (split between the two channel users) to get out.

firstly a channel is usually set up with a lock time.. thus not eternal.
secondly people are not dumb enough to put their lifetime hoardings into a lock that never expires
thirdly its only deemed safe to put in an amount that would last you a certain time, and human nature is people can only predict spending habits of a few weeks..

there are other aspects and reasons why LN channels would not be eternal which will become clearer after i clarify your other points below.

Quote from: fred21 on August 29, 2017, 06:13:20 PM

2) some people think that you have to create a channel for every user you send money to. But no, you have to create only 1 channel with another user. Then you will be connected to the network and your transaction will find its way through the network to the user you want to pay. Your wallet finds a route through the network to those people as explain here
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/43700/how-does-the-lightning-network-work-in-simple-terms

please run some scenarios.. your missing many aspects.
i said before for private direct payment to someone in your channel you dont need to open more channels. but if you want to be part of a route/network to pay anyone you do need more than one channel.

EG alice paying bob.. 1 channel alice:bob
but if charlie gets involved either alice or bob needs to open a channel with charlie so that the chain/route can be established
EG alice paying charlie
alice:bob bob:charlie as you can see bob needs 2 channels for alice to pay charlie.
thinking bob does not need more than one channel would leave bob not part of the route network and only able to interact with alice, no one else, same goes for alice,

using an earlier post i made ages ago i will explain Alice Bob Charlie Dave Edward based route/network

Quote from: franky1 on July 03, 2017, 01:10:23 PM

the reality people need to realise is
FIAT spenders use debit cards 40 times a month on average, but because bitcoin is not acceptable in every retailer
the average spender only uses bitcoin once a week/once a year.(5 a month average) based on person-merchant

the only real niche LN has is the faucet raiders and exchange day traders that will want to arbitrage daily. (average 10 a day)

knowing people cannot predict spending habits beyond a couple weeks and wont risk locking entire hoards into year/eternity long channels. the reality is channels will only get funded with pocket money amounts and for only a couple weeks lock periods.

these things limit the available funding for route hopping to occur

LN is not.. and i emphasise this.. is not about the funds of [A-B] $120 actually moving out of the channel. LN is about having 'pockets' of funds that 2 parties share. and they have a couple pockets dedicated to share

think of it like a 3 legged race where the legs are tied together with a fanny/bumbag. where the money stays in the fanny/bumbag. but who owes what % of whats inside the fanny/bumbag is agreed by the 2 people tied to it.

so get 5 people and play a game

EG
[A-B] [B-C] [C-D] [D-E]
imagine BCD only trust $60 for 2 weeks
A need to deposit $60 (1 channel with B of $60)
B need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with A and C)
C need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with B and D)
D need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with C and E)
E need to deposit $60 (1 channel with D of $60)
[$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60]

now imagine if A wants to pay E $60
[$0-$120][$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$60-$60][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120] now finally after 4 hops E has $60 extra thanks to the 'routing'/hops

technically B, C, D still has $120 but its not spread over the channels
for instance B has $120
but has $120 in [A-B] but $0 in [B-C] channel

meaning if B wants to pay D.. B can no longer user the [B-C][C-D] route because B doesnt have funds to pay C to pay D.

instead B needs to go backwards through [A-B] because thats where B's funds are, so...
B needs to give A.. then A needs to find a completely new route or create a new channel that is funded and has a new route to E to get E to pay D. or B needs to set up a new channel to fun that has a new route to E.

.. it may seem complicated but its alot easier visually if you just get 5 friends and 3 fanny/bumbags and put $120 of monopoly money in each bag ($60) each person... and without physically taking the paper money out.. agreeing who owes what inside each bumbag and then finding the best chain of hops to fund the group..

and see how long the 'payments' last by making up scenarios of buying each other things.. you soon learn the limitations of LN
next time you are at a bitcoin meet-up.. try it with the other attendee's. as its a very helpful visual display

as you can se.. not only does B need a channel (tie) to A bit also a channel to C
as you can see if A wants to pay E.. then B,C,D have less funds on their side to play around with in the future because its already been moved one sided for the route payment
meaning that some parties need to close their channels early to the start again by moving funds from second channel into first channel to then be able to be part of the route

Quote from: fred21 on August 29, 2017, 06:13:20 PM

3) LN will lead to centralization. why? If a LN is too centralized and make decision that make its user unhappy, then its users vote with their feet and leave the network, close their channel. They create a new network on their own. No big central entity will be capable of controlling this. Meanwhile, the blockchain remains with small size blocks enabling plenty of nodes that keep the system decentralized.

The way I see it is : Blockchain : the place where you store your value
LN : the place where you use your value to pay for things

lol you might want to look into the DNS seeding or route seeding that will control who connects to what and how routes are discovered/created.. then you will see more than you realise
also to reduce the amount of channels needing to be created by lets say bob to connect to different strings of routes floating around. hubs will be created.. think about that