Quote from: qwizzie on July 09, 2018, 11:54:46 AM

Quote from: Cryptorials on July 09, 2018, 08:09:10 AM

Quote from: qwizzie on July 08, 2018, 07:00:11 PM

Quote from: Cryptorials on July 08, 2018, 03:29:11 PM

Quote from: Lontonbit on July 08, 2018, 03:14:05 PM

Dash drops to .035 btc??? Wtf is going on everything else is booming

Maybe its the lightning network slowly closing Dash's window of opportunity.

Once LN is more fully deployed, unless Dash has built up a strong base of users (actual users not speculative hodlers) before then, Dash's main selling point of scalability, fast transactions and low fees becomes largely irrelevant imho. It still could do well by being more user friendly and adding other extra Ethereum like features in a user-friendly way, but it will get harder to break through and that is going to be reflected in the price.

Lightning Network is still light years away from getting fully tested and implemented in a safe way and on a large scale. LN can not guarantee low transaction fees and has difficulty with the routing of its transactions as its nodes will always need to stay online. In the end it will just lead to massive centralization thanks to how the Lightning Network works and most likely end up only handling large transactions from large institutions through preferenced LN hubs for Bitcoin. Not to mention how LN will most likely create new attack vectors by itself as a lot of value will pass through its centralized LN hubs / nodes.

https://www.investopedia.com/tech/bitcoin-lightning-network-problems/
https://cryptovest.com/news/the-lightning-network-poses-serious-weaknesses/

Genuinely not trying to FUD just trying to share my concerns and form my own opinion on the matter through conversation, but how is that so very different from masternodes? Are they not nodes which always have to stay online, create centralization, and centralized points of attack?

I don't see how LN nodes needing to stay online is a problem, since there is an in-built reward mechanism to compensate people for doing this. Centralization may be an issue for it, although I've also seen the argument that because they may require a money transmitter license and open the person running it to being responsible for what other participants are using it for there may be few large companies willing to go through the hassle and risk, leaving smaller players not worth chasing down by authorities to pick up the slack. And if it does become very centralized, its still just an extra service on top of Bitcoin and you can still use the underlying protocol when you want so maybe that's not a critical problem. Also there can be multiple LN networks so if one is un-friendly to regular people somebody will launch a new one surely? And as for points of attack, at least a node cannot steal the money being routed through it, only delay payments, so perhaps hacking is not quite such a massive issue?

With Dash the blockchain is structured into tiers (miners form tier 1, masternodes form tier 2, endusers after Dash Evolution form tier 3). These tiers are all part of the same network. Masternodes are used for processing InstantSend transactions, facilitate coin mixing (PrivateSend) and can be used to vote on budget proposals. Masternodes and its quorums are selected randomly and are collaterized with a 1000 Dash per masternode. To attack the Dash masternode network the costs would be very high and the attack success rate very low due to Dash masternode collaterization and how it randomly selects its masternodes. Dash masternodes (4600 more or less) are spread all over the world and are even setup by users through joint-sharing. The Masternode Network has no problem with a hot & cold wallet setup, where the hot wallet is an empty wallet on the server side and the cold wallet contains the masternode collateral (offline).

Bitcoin Lightning Network is a centralized seperate network that is not part of Bitcoin's blockchain, has a relatively small number of nodes (1000) that can easily be sybil-attacked and most importantly does not form a solution for Bitcoin's scaling problem by itself.
When Bitcoin's ability to relay transactions over its LN gets hampered due to hacks or Ddos attacks or infiltration of its LN nodes, users will not just fall back to Bitcoin with its slow confirmation time and high transaction costs, they will seek other altcoins that are not hampered by such additional centralized network. Cold storage of coins is impossible on the LN, making it susceptable to theft and hacking.

I think its way too premature to currently herald the Lightning Network as a solution to Bitcoin's scaling problem and it is even more
premature to use it as an urgument that it makes certain altcoins obsolete.

I agree Cryptorial's post was not Fudding, nice to see interesting debate on both sides. To add some of my thoughts.

The biggest difference between the two approaches for me is that using Dash instantsend transactions are all confirmed on-chain and secured with proof of work on the blockchain. In LN transactions are offchain until the differences are settled. Conceptually I view LN as like bank accounts, you open up a channel with a hub (like an account at a bank) using funds you lock, (deposit on your bank account). This model 'might' (or might not) work but is taking users away from blockchain security towards a more centralised bankmodel of security. Dash masternodes are actual nodes on the blockchain network.

Additionally, Dash instant send has been implemented for some time. LN is still much more a work in progress.

And Dash masternodes tier enables much more than just instant payments including enhanced privacy and a treasury with governance.