fractional reserve on LN. it has begun
https://www.bitrefill.com/buy/lightning-channel/
500,000 sats capacity You pay 0.000403 BTC
2,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.001341 BTC
4,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.002011 BTC
8,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.003753 BTC
16,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.004825 BTC
Can you explain how that would be possible? Are you telling everyone who reads your post that Bitrefill is issuing "Lightning pegged IOU tokens"?
Franky1 already did, sadly you don't have the background to understand it,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124663.msg50325896#msg50325896
Maybe you should actually read his post, instead of just clicking reply,
also google everything he listed and actually read it.
Lightning Network
Disadvantages:
Requires 2 time locked Onchain Transaction per Party , meaning a single LN offchain transaction requires 4 onchain transactions
With some adjustments this can be called an Advantage: "a thousand LN offchain transactions still only require 4 onchain transactions".Disadvantages:
Requires 2 time locked Onchain Transaction per Party , meaning a single LN offchain transaction requires 4 onchain transactions
Lightning Network
Disadvantages:
Fractional Reserve & Counterfeiting possible until Withdrawal ONCHAIN confirms ownership
Disadvantages:
Fractional Reserve & Counterfeiting possible until Withdrawal ONCHAIN confirms ownership
Can you explain how this is a possibility in Lightning? Because I have seen this being lobbed around as an attack on Lightning without any explanations, or examples of how technically it could happen.
I was going to ask the same thing. As far as I know, it's not possible, as each LN transaction requires signatures.
However, without knowing the details of how LN works, I'm now wondering if it would be possible for a LN-hub to use the same funds to sign different transactions with different users, more commonly known as double spending. Kinda like how I can sign different transactions from a legacy address, and as long as I don't broadcast them for on-chain confirmation, they can all be valid. I sure hope this isn't possible.
this is Segregated Witness and 2017 all over again but this time with Lightning Network. and FYI OP is the same person who has been spreading the same false information about SegWit back in that time too under a different account. the same way they were trying to convince everyone that your funds in a SegWit address can be spent by anybody they are now trying to say funds in an LN channel can be spent multiple times!
Let's not turn this topic into a mudslinging debate for the newbies' sake.
I have no need of your assistance with Pursuer, he is just another guy that thinks he knows more than he does.
Which is why I just ignored his personal ignorance, until you made a spectacle of it.
Just remember that the transaction size might increase as better funded Lightning Network nodes are funded, but the main purpose of the Lightning Network was always to remove smaller micro transactions from the on-chain Blockchain to alleviate the congestion.
The centralization and regulation of both exchanges and Gift cards both require strict KYC/AML regulation and this is not necessary with the Lightning Network.
The centralization and regulation of both exchanges and Gift cards both require strict KYC/AML regulation and this is not necessary with the Lightning Network.
Do you believe LN hubs will always be able to avoid KYC/AML regulations
or
do you feel it is a matter of time before they are forced into compliance?
How do you force people globally to adhere to KYC/AML regulations, if they are part of one huge decentralized network? Do you think people hosting Tor nodes would give a damn about some government that wants to force them to identify themselves? They could not stop other similar P2P networks ...so why would they be able to do this with the Lightning Network?
Plan B, would be to bump the Block sizes and to abandon the Lightning Network, if they did find a way to stop it. < Bitcoin is also a P2P network and it has been around since 2009.
> Bitcoin was developed to be unstoppable. I would imagine the LN hubs would be forced into compliance the same way as the exchanges were.
There was an article discussing how coinbase would never activate a LN hub as it would break their KYC/AML standing with the government,
however since LN hub can literally select which hubs they will partner with, they could open an LN hub and follow KYC/AML regulations while only allowing their hub to connect to other hubs following KYC/AML regulations. Most users would not care as long as it worked.
Any hubs refusing to follow KYC/AML regulations would be ostracize by the major players and using them would cost more as more hops would be required.
I get you think LN hub are invulnerable to government intervention , time will tell.