If someone is willing to link or quote this in the LN discussion thread, I suppose that would stimulate the discussion points over there. I guess my last contribution.
Also I mostly agree with this post there:
The caveat is that I had explained (but my posts were nuked) some of my reasons in the Limits of PoW thread and his PoCW thread, why my technological understanding is that the potential on-chain transaction volume scalability of proof-of-work (in any configuration such as even sharding) is limited and could not attain IoT scale. He seems to think otherwise, but until I see a research paper with convincing formalization, I believe he is incorrect in his belief.
In the nuked posts I had explained in detail for example elaborating on the analysis of OmniLedger which I had previously blogged about:
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers
Decentralized exchanges are still in a raw state. They are not newbie friendly, just like the Lightning Network. I wouldn't call them a failure because there is still a lot of work which needs to be done. We still lack user-friendly Lightning Network wallets which could provide channel backup and easy full-node setup process. There is a risk that the whole network becomes more centralized in the future because of people opening their channels to the biggest nodes or depending on a third party. Despite all this facts, the number of nodes and users is constantly growing and you must be asking yourself, why is that?
Lightning Network is still in its early state, why not compare it to the early days of Bitcoin when it was fairly easy to take over the network with a 51% attack? Give it some more time. Nobody expects to see every Bitcoin user using the Lightning Network this year.
Love that trolling (not ad hominem but still time wasting crap) when someone replies but totally ignores the economic point and builds a strawman argument to obfuscate the fact they actually didnt make any relevant rebuttal.
I didnt claim that decentralized exchanges will never be used. In fact OTC markets are used by the very wealthy, but they go no bid in times of stress because theres no possible way to do secure shorting in a non-centralized exchange.
The salient point which he side-stepped entirely is that for payment systems, users have no choice but to be where the liquidity is.
Theres no amount of improvement to the usability of the software that can overcome the economics bottom-line which is that everyone who uses a payment system needs to be on the same system and there needs to be always enough liquidity.
Of course the other bunny rabbits will think he actually rebutted me and carry on blissfully to the woodchipper.
I had clearly explained that Lightning Networks will work fine with Satoshis protocol once it centralizes as it must because it is a natural monopoly:
Scale = better service (routing, etc) and higher liquidity
Decentralized exchanges have failed because everyone needs to be where the liquidity is. Much more so for payment systems. When someone cant route their payment because of insufficient liquidity, both the merchant and the customer lose.
The LN Mt.Gox hubs can then leverage this need into entrenched oligarchies, which can dictate terms to users and merchants. Visa and Mastercard here we come again.
Nothing changes. We are right back where we started from.
For example the current LN thread discussion is incorrect or incomplete ever since @anunymint was nuked from the thread. They do not understand the concept of a natural monopoly and that the liquidity scale is the barrier-to-entry in LN because users always need to be where the liquidity is as exemplified by exchanges, especially in payment systems because merchants and users dont want to be stuck and not be able to checkout the shopping cart.
Scale = better service (routing, etc) and higher liquidity
Decentralized exchanges have failed because everyone needs to be where the liquidity is. Much more so for payment systems. When someone cant route their payment because of insufficient liquidity, both the merchant and the customer lose.
The LN Mt.Gox hubs can then leverage this need into entrenched oligarchies, which can dictate terms to users and merchants. Visa and Mastercard here we come again.
Nothing changes. We are right back where we started from.
Also I mostly agree with this post there:
Once a problem looks to be a challenge on first layer, one should firstly think of improving the infrastructure. Bitcoin is not a rigid, dead system. This infrastructure has more potentials to be unleashed and yet we have sharding solutions in the horizon as well. Sharding is a first layer protocol, an on-chain scalability solution.
Sharding is more elegant and beautiful compared to ugly complicated second layer solutions like LN, which completely abstracts users from the consensus algorithm, the way google, facebook, .... ruined the Internet and turned it to such a dangerous place for ordinary people by compromising their privacy and security. I suppose you guys have a same agenda for destroying bitcoin by putting people behind layers of abstraction.
It is an insane strategy. Bitcoin needs fresh breath to breath interaction with users and simplicity. Only a corporate employee would take second layer development serious, a hacker, just don't GAS.
Sharding is more elegant and beautiful compared to ugly complicated second layer solutions like LN, which completely abstracts users from the consensus algorithm, the way google, facebook, .... ruined the Internet and turned it to such a dangerous place for ordinary people by compromising their privacy and security. I suppose you guys have a same agenda for destroying bitcoin by putting people behind layers of abstraction.
It is an insane strategy. Bitcoin needs fresh breath to breath interaction with users and simplicity. Only a corporate employee would take second layer development serious, a hacker, just don't GAS.
The caveat is that I had explained (but my posts were nuked) some of my reasons in the Limits of PoW thread and his PoCW thread, why my technological understanding is that the potential on-chain transaction volume scalability of proof-of-work (in any configuration such as even sharding) is limited and could not attain IoT scale. He seems to think otherwise, but until I see a research paper with convincing formalization, I believe he is incorrect in his belief.
In the nuked posts I had explained in detail for example elaborating on the analysis of OmniLedger which I had previously blogged about:
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers
Decentralized exchanges have failed because everyone needs to be where the liquidity is. Much more so for payment systems. When someone cant route their payment because of insufficient liquidity, both the merchant and the customer lose.
Decentralized exchanges are still in a raw state. They are not newbie friendly, just like the Lightning Network. I wouldn't call them a failure because there is still a lot of work which needs to be done. We still lack user-friendly Lightning Network wallets which could provide channel backup and easy full-node setup process. There is a risk that the whole network becomes more centralized in the future because of people opening their channels to the biggest nodes or depending on a third party. Despite all this facts, the number of nodes and users is constantly growing and you must be asking yourself, why is that?
Lightning Network is still in its early state, why not compare it to the early days of Bitcoin when it was fairly easy to take over the network with a 51% attack? Give it some more time. Nobody expects to see every Bitcoin user using the Lightning Network this year.
Love that trolling (not ad hominem but still time wasting crap) when someone replies but totally ignores the economic point and builds a strawman argument to obfuscate the fact they actually didnt make any relevant rebuttal.
I didnt claim that decentralized exchanges will never be used. In fact OTC markets are used by the very wealthy, but they go no bid in times of stress because theres no possible way to do secure shorting in a non-centralized exchange.
The salient point which he side-stepped entirely is that for payment systems, users have no choice but to be where the liquidity is.
Theres no amount of improvement to the usability of the software that can overcome the economics bottom-line which is that everyone who uses a payment system needs to be on the same system and there needs to be always enough liquidity.
Of course the other bunny rabbits will think he actually rebutted me and carry on blissfully to the woodchipper.