Re: How to Solve the Non-Mining Node issue and Increase Real Scalability
The solution is simple,
Bitcoin needs to make a code change that requires all LN Hubs to run a FULL NODE.
Not the scaled down nodes, like many use, but True FULL nodes with the Full Blockchain stored and letting new users sync the entire blockchain from them.
That doesn't make the solution simple, that makes it impossible. How do you force LN hubs to run a full node? Where do we draw the line between hub and not hub? Do all participants draw that line differently? If you could, as a network, choose not to do business with a node with a large number of channels unless they can also verify it is running on a full node, somehow, what does that do? The hub could divide its channels across several of its own nodes, keeping under the threshold to be considered a "hub". I think this idea is either virtually impossible or useless.Bitcoin needs to make a code change that requires all LN Hubs to run a FULL NODE.
Not the scaled down nodes, like many use, but True FULL nodes with the Full Blockchain stored and letting new users sync the entire blockchain from them.
Impossible, Useless,
do you naysayers even listen to your selves.
Segwit is what allowed LN to work without requiring a full node, (Before Segwit it would have been a requirement.)
modify the segwit over complicated code to require LN Hubs to require a Full Node on the same PC running the LN Hub,
and if no Full Node is running , disable the LN hub's ability to create new channels.
I hand you the solution to the non-mining node issue on a silver platter, and you want to claim it is too hard,
by that whiny nature why don't we just use banks because in your opinion everything else is too hard.
Why on Earth should someone be required to run a full node just to transact? Especially transact on the LN, which is a second layer solution. If the developers of LN went that route, an alternative second layer solution would be offered. After all, the original white paper already laid the ground work for SPV nodes. People should not be required to run a full node unless they want to. Furthermore, the problem is not keeping up, it is trying to catch up if you have to start from scratch. It already takes most people who run a home node several hours, if not days to complete the verification if the have to start from scratch. If I were a potential new user and wanted to try out the LN to buy a cup of coffee, I would probably lose my patience in several seconds. Not many are going to be willing to wait several hours or days to explore this payment option.
I suppose that a blocksize increase to 8 mb with a 3% increase per year is okay. However, good luck getting anywhere near a consensus on that proposal.
I suppose that a blocksize increase to 8 mb with a 3% increase per year is okay. However, good luck getting anywhere near a consensus on that proposal.
LN Hubs that use Bitcoin , are directly profiting off of BITCOIN,
Why should they get a free ride and you expect idiots that make no funds whatsoever to run full nodes when no hope of compensation. On one hand you expect the poor to host full nodes for free and people directly profiting from Bitcoin to get a free ride, examine that and I am sure you will see the conflict there.
SPV Nodes are insecure , only Full Nodes offer real security hosting the entire blockchain, all of the not full node nonsense should be dropped and discarded for security reasons.