Quote from: nightflightcourt on March 15, 2020, 02:14:09 AM

Quote from: Marckolind on March 12, 2020, 07:28:27 PM

Guess I need to do some research on Lightning, as this post above is pretty damn interesting.

I've seen a lot of hate on Lightning as of lately, but this seems like a cool implementation idea. Thanks for posting.

The hardest challenge in Bitcoin's case is maintaining a consistently reliable infrastructure at the 2nd level. By embedding LN nodes into a scalable masternode network that already runs 24/7, we can establish a permanent base of stable, constantly open and active channels to process transactions.

Bitcoin needs a solution like this to scale beyond it's on-chain tx bottleneck effectively. The amount of on-chain transactions available at any given time needs to be as thoroughly optimized as it can be to make the most constructive use of the network at any given point, and I believe it's best to reserve as much of that tx/time bandwidth for transactions involving larger sums of money that need the additional protections granted by on-chain (traceability, never lose funds in a channel by mistake).

Its inherently awful for sending small sums of money. Buying a concert/sports ticket at the gate, paying the check at a restaurant, waiting for the payment to process when you're buying a beer or in the front of a long line at the grocery store? From multiple wallets if you and a friend want to grab coffees? On-chain is way too slow to compete with cash or traditional ecommerce for everyday use.

It would be best to treat on-chain Bitcoin tx in a finite and priority-based manner like IPv4 addresses are in a network: finite, high priority, highly-organized, and in high-demand.

Lightning, alternatively, compliments Bitcoin in the same way that subnets compliment IPv4. Each and every one of those addresses in the IPv4 range are critical for expanding the internet and subnets allow for many more nodes and devices to participate on the network without crowding it. There are only so many plots of land in Hong Kong or Manhattan, but great density is achieved by building up. The internet is built up in a similar way. The IPv4 internet would have maxed out long ago and it would have been severely stunted.

For Lightning to do it's job in this way, it needs to be integrated with Bitcoin in a way that is economically feasible. The idea that near-zero fees are a threat to mining profitability and network security is very real. Routing near-zero fees on any small-scale level is barely profitable so liquidity is low and centralization looms.

Stakenets network appears to be the most cohesive answer to this problem. Stable, centralized liquidity pool from a purely decentralized engine.

Great explanation.
I'm sure a lot of people don't understand most of it, but in a nutshell:

There's NO incentive to run Lighning nodes on BTC alone from a financial aspect due to the low fees you'll earn
On top of Stakenet's masternodes (which is already running in profit) a Lightning Node with it's small income will be an "added" income stream on top of block rewards, which makes this whole setup unique and interesting.

Thanks for posting!