Quote from: sjefdeklerk on March 28, 2018, 11:53:48 PM

Quote from: d5000 on March 28, 2018, 11:39:00 PM

It's obvious that if you "recharge" your channel with lower amounts, you'll do it within LN itself. You would be connected via LN to your exchange, or if you're a merchant, to most of your clients.

Eh? If you have a channel with A and a channel with B and can simply fund B from A, then why have 2 channels in the first place? This makes no sense!

The standard configuration for most non-technically-savvy users would be only one channel: most likely with an exchange that acts as my hub and connects to other sub-hubs, acting also as my "recharging station".

But even the example you mention would make sense. If I have good hardware + a good Internet connection then I can try to profit becoming a mini-hub, charging some (extremely small) fees to the other connected users, for example my friends with less good connections that don't want to connect directly to an exchange to incentive decentralization.

Quote

You're a dreamer. Just like all the other LN adapts.

Yea, I know. But one has to be a dreamer sometimes, just like Satoshi was Wink

. (No, I'm not comparing myself with him.)

Anyway, I'm not so optimistic about LN as some other users here, as I consider it as a pure micro/mini-payment solution (for amounts up to $200-500), not so much as a complete replacement for on-chain TX. And I would like a steady, but slow block size increase (based on a model like DooMAD's one) to handle possible bottlenecks. And, of course, sidechains and alt-chains like I already wrote.

We'll see soon if optimists or pessimists are right Wink