Quote from: afbitcoins on January 09, 2018, 12:35:18 PM

Quote from: Heater on January 09, 2018, 10:38:21 AM

Quote from: afbitcoins on January 09, 2018, 10:07:26 AM

Quote from: Arriemoller on January 09, 2018, 09:46:34 AM

Quote from: Last of the V8s on January 09, 2018, 08:42:28 AM

Segwit. Bech32. MAST. Signature aggregation. Key aggregation. Batch validation. Covenants. CT & bullet proofs. Dandelion. Neutrino. Tx compression. Set reconciliation for tx relay. Block template delta compression. NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED. UTXO commitments. TXO commitments. TXO bitfields. Rolling UTXO set hashes. Client-side validation. Peer encryption & auth. Fraud proofs. Scriptless atomic swaps. Zerolink/tumblebit. [Cut:] layer 2, HF rsrch, bip 8. (@rusty_twit)
and a paaartridge in a pear tree

That's exactly what I'm talking about, that just made my brain hurt, without telling me how to use it.

A few observations about the graphic.

The picture of the network is highly distorted, showing only 3 end users! when really theres hundred of thousands or millions potentially. HIghly connected hubs will be numbered in the hundreds (I feel I'm being generous with that number). That is a highly centralised network, nothing like the depiction.

I doubt many people use a hot wallet for everyday spending. The use case in which people have a spending wallet is already defunct. Who spends bitcoin when the fees are more than the cost of the purchase, you don't spend it.

The promise of low fees on LN was also made onchain in the early days. When I first used bitcoin most people didnt even put a fee. I suspect fees will not be low on LN, only lower than onchain fees.

When the internet appeared I was sure it would fail because I could not imaging a scenario where companies would pay to run expensive undersea cables that keep up with the demand (and all the other infrastructure) - and let me use it for 'free'. Somehow it works. This time I'm am keeping an open mind. There is enough money on the table so I'm sure something workable will emerge.

When bitcoin first appeared I imagined a world of peer to peer payments with no central institutions. LN is most definately not that.

The graphic tries to show how funding a channel is like funding a 'hot wallet'. A more accurate description is that funding a channel is like depositing money with a bank.

I always said LN will be supported by big money. No doubt there will be an epic pump, because 'scalability is solved'. I don't like it but I can profit from it. The original dream of bitcoin doesn't exist though.

I actually would regard using LN as the natural progression of scaling up peer to peer payments. Consider that much of the peer to peer traffic on the internet itself which we used to have has moved more to peer - "cloud" - peer system. Can't remember the last time I used a torrent program to get data.

Of course I wouldn't want banks involved in LN but if BTC is really going to replace all digital payments I think LN will have to exist. Vendors already usually only get paid out no more than once per day from payment gateways etc.

Also this would make it possible to accept BTC in a plane or even in space, who the hell knows what will be possible in the future.