Hot search keywords

Hot search keywords

Be Firmly and Openly against SegeWit and Lightning

Why are different mailboxes  able to send emails to each other?

Why aren’t messaging apps able to send messages to each other?

If you are a key stakeholder of Bitcoin, will you agree to establish a protocol for Bitcoin and Ethereum to make transferring coins from Ethereum to Bitocoin possible?

 Part 1: You need to control protocols before you control your interests.

The answer for why free message exchanges between mailboxes are available is that all mail servers comply with SMTP, an outgoing mail protocol, POP, a receiving protocol and IMAP.

Then why can’t messaging apps send messages to each other? What if QQ could send messages to Wechat(the most popular app of Tencent), Wechat could add friend from Skype and Alipay users could see moments of Wechat? What a wonderful life!

But Pony Ma, Tencent’s CEO will only reply: “never”

There has long been protocol for internet messaging apps called Internet Relay Chat(IRC) and Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). If these protocols are upheld, then people can send messages between different apps. Companies will small number of users will take these protocols like Gtalk and Spark both use XMPP. But those with large user bases like QQ, Wechat, WhatsApp will ignore the protocols. “Why on earth do I need to share user resources with you?” It’s impossible for companies to share their most valuable resources-users.

 Part 2: Lightning is the second layer payment network overriding Bitcoin’s base network.

The purpose of Lightning is to enable Bitcoin to have unlimited payment malleability, small transaction payment and instant confirmation. The essence of Lightning is to set up a direct payment channel to complete transactions. The onchain transactions of Bitcoin only completes when transaction is initiated and signed, broadcasted and confirmed via miners. But Lightning, as a payment channel will eliminate the need for coin senders to broadcast via Bitcoin’s blockchain. The coins will be sent to receiver directly.

To set up a payment channel for two parties, the first thing is to initiate a transaction with multiple signatures and broadcast it via Bitocoin’s blockchain. Then the two parties need to create a new transaction to bring back the coins to the original side and the coins involved needs to be locked-up like “these coins can’t be transacted on Bitcoin’s blockchain in the future 30 days”. During this period, the two sides can adjust their balances directly when needed. This is what we call a payment channel. The two can close the channel when the lock-up period ends or when voluntarily start a transaction to close it. Finally, the account balances of the two parties will be broadcasted on the blockchain.

The greatness of payment channel is that different channels can be connected. If A has payment channel with B and B has channel with C, then A can send coins to C via B.If someone in the world has set up a payment channel with the rest of the world, then all the people can send coins through this person. And the process will be instantaneous as there is no need to broadcast the transactions like the mainchain of Bitcoin.

Above is the simple depiction of the establishment of (connected) payment channel. These connected channels are called Lightning network. LN can make it technically possible for the nodes on payment channels to need no trust.

It’s still hard to set up Lightning network on current lightning network so some functions need to be added. And one added function is just Segregated Witness, on which miners are voting now.

Part 3 :LN-a second layer payment network that overrides Altcoins and other blockchain products

In Part 2 we have described a payment network that overrides bitcoin network. But LN can also be suitable for other Blockchain products like on Litecoin or Ethereum.

From these analyses we can see lightning is a great and adorable help for blockchain. It will make Bitcoin even better.

However, LG will evolve. Theoretically speaking, LG can connect all the blockchain products if applied.

Then what is it in this situation?

Part 4 :Multi-party Offline Network—one that overrides Bitcoin network and other altcoins

Now we say Bitcoin’s LN is based on Bitcoin. It means Bitcoin’s LN needs the base structure and protocol of Bitcoin. If Bitcoin’s protocol is not the base anymore, LG will be meaningless.

But the theory of next generation of LN will be different.

When reading whitepaper of Ethereum, I found it is also designing LN but Ehereum community call it Multi-party Offline Network(MON). Ethereum network is a virtual machine and various smart contracts can be tied on it and Ethereum’s LN is designed to connect these contracts. Furthermore. I have noticed that LN is itself a smart contract. It is the smart contract of smart contracts. In another word, it can distribute coins smartly for various smart contracts.

I was stunned when I realized it.

LN is a smart contract which enables payment channels on it to connect BTC, ETH or even more coins like LTC simultaneously. LN will be the bridge for different Blockchain products. On the other hand, payment channel is a smart contract that use hash time to lock up. It can be set up on any Blockchain products (like BTC,ETH or LTC) that can provide necessary smart contract function. Adjustment of account balances can be made in this payment channel without the need to be broadcast the transactions on the chains of these products.

Let me make it clear with an example.

A and B both own Bitocin, Ethereum coin and Litecoin in the meantime. Now A and B can open 3 payment channels to transact the three coins. But the three channels could have the same set of codes, namely one payment channel can lock up the 3 coins and adjust balances of the 3 coins. Furthermore, if A, B and C only have Bitocin, Ethereum coin and Litecoin respectively, then the same payment channel can enable them to send different coins to each other.

This type of LN (smart contract) just can distribute coins offline between multiple Blockchain products (like BTH, ETH, and LTC). To put it into other words, LN is not the second-layer payment network of Bitcoin but a network that overrides all the Blockchains. Bitcoin becomes the second-layer network.

14821456461

Part 5 :Protocol will undermine user loyalty.

Email operators seldom make money out of emails though protocols like SMTP/POP make free communication between different mail boxed possible. Only big companies will operate email servers. If QQ, Wechat, WhatsApp and Alipay exchange their user resources based on a protocol, users will be far less sticky as they can change different apps like changing email domains. These companies will be depreciated.

Now Bitcoin has big user base and high user loyalty and far-reaching influence. Bitcoin’s users are deciding whether they want an adjustment protocol of SW-LB, which can enable users to lock up transactions by hash time and build more complex transactions. If LN is applied, other Blockchain protocols can all use LG and it evolve into Multi-party Offline Network. The MON will become the protocol of all Blockchain products. Bitcoin’s user resources will be shared with other altcoins and the user loyalty will be undermined. The commercial value of Bitcoin will be undermined, too. It’s easy to imagine what the Bitcoin price could be under such circumstance

I don’t need to send my bitcoins to Ethereum. I don’t need Multi-party Offline Netwrok.

I love Bitcoin. Now LN wants miners to activate SW. As a stakeholder, my response to SW is: Do not activate SW!

Miners, please do not activate it. It’s not the time yet. We have to wait until Bitcoin is strong enough. Only when Bitcoin has gained enough user base, user loyalty and broad recognition as a currency should it provide necessary smart contract function. At that time, we just need the strong computing power of Bitcoin instead of “Multi-party Offline Network” to handle transactions between different coins.

This is translation of article written by Huang Shiliang, famous opinion leader in China’s Bitcoin community. The article dose not represent the opinions of 8btc. see original text.

 To tip the author Mr. Huang, here is his Bitcoin address: 14mhzjkJ71oMAMkKu3dy98dnUpkyQBHL1r

COMMENTS(56)

  • BitcoinAllBot
    7 months ago BitcoinAllBot

    Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: LightningHuang

  • Investwisely11
    7 months ago Investwisely11

    OP’s argument is that since LN will open the door for cross blockchain transactions ( he didn’t explain exactly how?) people will exchange bitcoin for ETH and LTC and bitcoin will lose market share

    Users don’t need this cross chain protocol in order to buy altcoins , they can do it fine right now with very little hassle.
    Also he dismisses bitcoin’s powerful network effect and use as a store of value.

  • Lite_Coin_Guy
    7 months ago Lite_Coin_Guy

    “i not” 😛

  • bahatassafus
    7 months ago bahatassafus

    True. I wonder how many of the upvoters bothered to even read this post, not to mention, understand its point.

    If LN is applied, other Blockchain protocols can all use LG and it evolve into Multi-party Offline Network. The MON will become the protocol of all Blockchain products. Bitcoin’s user resources will be shared with other altcoins and the user loyalty will be undermined. The commercial value of Bitcoin will be undermined, too. It’s easy to imagine what the Bitcoin price could be under such circumstance

  • btchip
    7 months ago btchip

    The whole article made about as much sense as a Zero Wing translation (that might explain why there are some communication problems with the Chinese community …), but forgetting that, Lightning doesn’t need Segwit to work (it just works better with Segwit)

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    I think this somewhat mirrors my sentiment on this lately.

    Note: I like off-chain stuff. I just wonder whether there will be trade-off, enforced by educated, aware miners, on how easy and nice it will be compared to on-chain transactions.

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    At 3txn/s, almost no-one will regularly use the underlying Bitcoin network.

    That situation is comparable to LN being green pieces of paper that you hold, and that you are (or were) legally entitled to change into a correspondingly sized chunk of gold.

    Of course, the analogy only goes so far. Right now, “LN green pieces of paper” still contain a proof that their share of ‘Bitgold’ is waiting for them (in principle).

    But will this be enough to stop the potential demonetization of Bitcoin?

    With 3txn/s you would be able to only cash out into that ‘gold’ about twice per lifetime!

    How big is the difference between ‘you can transact ‘gold’ twice per lifetime’ to ‘gold is forbidden and all gold belongs to the state’?

    If you have no money, you might be inclined to accept ‘special LN++ tokens’, issued by your bank, that will work just like today’s debt-based money.

    Have enough of those with low friction and Bitcoin will be forgotten.

    And all the above doesn’t even touch all the other things, like that Bitcoin was never meant to be just ‘Bitgold’ – and that there has been no good argument brought forward for why we should deviate from Satoshi’s path and artificially cripple this beast.

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    Lightning doesn’t need Segwit to work (it just works better with Segwit)

    But isn’t that a very valid reason to oppose it, as a miner?

  • polsymtas
    7 months ago polsymtas

    Wow, I’m sure this is only getting upvoted because the title says it’s against SW and LN.

    I’m curious if anyone who has actually read it agrees with it?

  • polsymtas
    7 months ago polsymtas

    you mean the title mirrors it?

    or this nonsense

    LN is not the second-layer payment network of Bitcoin but a network that overrides all the Blockchains.

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    LN is not the second-layer payment network of Bitcoin but a network that overrides all the Blockchains.

    Ln can be implemented on other blockchains. It is not hard to imagine that ‘LN’ can be implemented on top of debt-based money, even.

    All layers of abstraction do hide the underlying foundation to an extend (and that is their purpose).

    Compare green bills saying ‘redeemable in gold’ to LN.

    If the underlying Bitcoin is as unusable and Gold is for payments (compared to paper and electronic money) – and it will be at 3txn/s – there is no real reason to assume it won’t be demonetized in the long term.

    And I am saying this as someone who in principle does like off-chain stuff.

  • polsymtas
    7 months ago polsymtas

    Ok, thanks. I’m not sure your point applies, but I’ll think about it.

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    I am not sure either, I just think these are valid points to ponder.

    As I have said, Satoshi had payment channels (and in that sense ‘green bills’) in mind while implementing Bitcoin, as that functionality was there since the beginning and explicitly wanted.

    But SegWit/LN might take this too far.

    And I do think it does when it is done while crippling the main chain.

  • bahatassafus
    7 months ago bahatassafus

    How is that relevant to anything in the OP or in the comment you replied to?

    As for the general scaling concerns, SW includes a considerable on-chain scaling and helps with further improvements.

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    How is that relevant to anything in the OP or in the comment you replied to?

    Huh?! Did you bother reading what I wrote? It is directly addresses the concern that the linked article voices, which is that LN might decouple from Bitcoin.

    As for the general scaling concerns, SW includes a considerable on-chain scaling and helps with further improvements.

    Among other things, it contains a new, arbitrary, out-of-Greg’s-behind 4:1 economic parameter which is introduced for the very purpose of incentivizing off-chain use. And gladly, it appears that miners are not falling for this trap.

  • Investwisely11
    7 months ago Investwisely11

    If you think bitcoin will stay at 1mb forever you are delusional.

    I am on the core side but if I knew they would keep the 1mb limit forever I would sell my bitcoin in the min

    Core has support right now because they offer solutions to problems, the day they stop offering solutions ( your scenario) they will lose community support and be replaced quickly.

  • polsymtas
    7 months ago polsymtas

    The green bills may be redeemable for gold, but there is no guarantee of a 1:1 ratio. Actually the reason you do it is to break the 1:1 ratio

    1 bitcoin in LN = 1 bitcoin on main chain.

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    If you think bitcoin will stay at 1mb forever you are delusional.

    And I don’t think that. Core is keen on keeping it small and is in the process of being routed around.

    Luke-Jr wants 300kB. Is that delusional? You decide 🙂

    I am on the core side but if I knew they would keep the 1mb limit forever I would sell my bitcoin in the min

    Or you are extremely stubborn and long-term thinking, with a good dose of optimism and expect that the current bunch will be routed around.

    But you are absolutely right: There are many others, and many investments that are stalled because to the rest of the world, it does indeed look like Bitcoin is crippled at 1MB forever and/or subject to a hostile takeover.
    With increasing miner votes for non-Core solutions, that expectation is slowly changing, but I think we might have just made it through the valley of despair in this regard.

    Core has support right now because they offer solutions to problems, the day they stop offering solutions ( your scenario) they will lose support and someone else with a better solution will gain support.

    If you look closely, you’ll see that they promise vaporware solutions for problems they are themselves creating. More and more people are making this closer look.

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    But what is the difference of ‘this bill is redeemable for 1oz of gold’ to ‘this token is redeemable for 1BTC’?

  • Dekker3D
    7 months ago Dekker3D

    It’s funny.. this article against LN and SegWit has not made me any less ambivalent about SegWit and has only made me want LN more. Being able to instantly transfer money between various cryptocurrencies sounds awesome, and while it might negatively affect the price of BTC compared to those of altcoins, it would add a lot of utility to cryptocurrencies as a whole and probably pump them up pretty hard. Imagine if buying any cryptocurrency got you near-instant access to all the features of every cryptocurrency in such a MON system? Most the money would flow to the best store of value, and some would go to the best casual-payment coin, whichever those are. Cryptocurrency as a whole would evolve into a massive thing.

    So yeah. This article had an effect on me, 100% opposite of the intended effect.
    (Not an r/bitcoin shill. I’ve been a BU fanboy for ages)

  • polsymtas
    7 months ago polsymtas

    Because if it’s not a 1:1 ratio it inflates the money supply

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    Because if it’s not a 1:1 ratio it inflates the money supply

    But only if the promise of ‘this bill is redeemable for 1oz of gold’ doesn’t hold.

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    Being able to instantly transfer money between various cryptocurrencies sounds awesome, and while it might negatively affect the price of BTC compared to those of altcoins, it would add a lot of utility to cryptocurrencies as a whole and probably pump them up pretty hard.

    And as someone only interested in Bitcoin and its success and value you might now see the reason why I think it is good to be at least very wary of supporting this?

  • polsymtas
    7 months ago polsymtas

    No, because it holds if no one tries to redeem, or less than the gold reserve

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    I’m curious if anyone who has actually read it agrees with it?

    Not exactly agreeing (see my other comments), but I think he’s poking at the right stuff. There might be a balance between on-chain and off-chain transactions, and SegWit might shift this balance to the detriment of the miners (as well as Bitcoin holders in general).

    EDIT: Fixed word: advantage -> balance

  • shesek1
    7 months ago shesek1

    I make <20 NIS (~$5) payments all the time, should I get myself checked?

  • H0dlr
    7 months ago H0dlr

    Continuing to not understand what makes bitcoin work. Sad.

  • H0dlr
    7 months ago H0dlr

    OP is correct. With bidirectional channels enabled with CSV along with cross chain atomic swaps, Bitcoin miners will be relegated to obscurity via tx fees starvation in deference to LN hubs. These channels will never have to close and HTLC’s could trade on their own markets. People don’t understand that PoW is the key to Bitcoins success since it requires the expenditure of a real world resource: electricity. That’s why we call it The Energy Currency.

    God bless Jeff Garzik, but he admitted flat out recently in an interview podcast, that one of the main reasons he became a software developer was that he didn’t want to do physical work but would rather not get up and sit behind a computer to generate a living. This can also be said for spinning up a LN hub as opposed to doing PoW mining.

    Don’t be mislead miners: core dev coders are here to eat your lunch (steal your future tx fee income}.

  • btchip
    7 months ago btchip

    Continuing to stalk and harass. Sad.

  • H0dlr
    7 months ago H0dlr

    You’re sounding more and more like Greg. Did you always feel your a victim? It’s simple really. You keep trolling this forum like it’s your own little playground and keep demonstrating a poor understanding about what drives Bitcoin. So yeah, expect to keep being called out.

  • Hitchslappy
    7 months ago Hitchslappy

    Did you always feel your a victim?

    This sub was created for entitled victims…

  • btchip
    7 months ago btchip

    You keep trolling this forum like it’s your own little playground

    y u not like free speech 🙁

    and keep demonstrating a poor understanding about what drives Bitcoin.

    please elaborate which part of mentioning that Segwit is not necessary to run Lightning demonstrates a poor understanding about what drives Bitcoin ? considering it’s not even part of Bitcoin ? Or maybe you forgot to read the article ?

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    please elaborate which part of mentioning that Segwit is not necessary to run Lightning demonstrates a poor understanding about what drives Bitcoin ? considering it’s not even part of Bitcoin ? Or maybe you forgot to read the article ?

    Let’s all try to keep the discussion just a notch above the playground fight.

    What do you think about my argument above that maybe SegWit makes off-chain too easy to be palatable by the miners?

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    HTLC

    Sorry, I am out of the loop. What is that?

    EDIT: Trying to answer myself here: Hash time-locked contract?

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    Ok, thanks!

  • H0dlr
    7 months ago H0dlr

    y u not like free speech 🙁

    Them why call my free responses to your nonsense “stalking”? Do you feel like a victim?

  • H0dlr
    7 months ago H0dlr

    What is LG btw?

  • H0dlr
    7 months ago H0dlr

    This was also the idea behind SC’s that have failed miserably. Siphon bitcoin value units offchain via the p2sh leaky conduit to potentially inflatable assets, like SC btc and HTLC’s, that could have their own market values. The entire raison d’etre for offchain solutions is to relax/redirect/route around the stringent monetary rules enforced by onchain solutions.

  • H0dlr
    7 months ago H0dlr

    But if you trade the HTLC’s themselves, maybe 1 BTC on mainchain != 1 BTC in dollar terms on LN. These are smart contracts and contracts trade all the time in the real world for varying values . Take purse.io for instance.

  • H0dlr
    7 months ago H0dlr

    Not only is core fundamentally changing bitcoin to establish a permanent connection with LN through SW, they are also applying an economic incentive to drive txs and their fees to it via the discount, while also crippling onchain growth to 2tps.

  • bahatassafus
    7 months ago bahatassafus

    No clue

  • ForkiusMaximus
    7 months ago ForkiusMaximus

    Probably a typo for LN. He’s just saying any altcoin can use LN as well, so it’s pointless to say things like, “LN will make Bitcoin faster than onchain scaling can.” Success in a competitive environment doesn’t allow for leaving easy and safe capacity increases on the table.

  • btchip
    7 months ago btchip

    What do you think about my argument above that maybe SegWit makes off-chain too easy to be palatable by the miners?

    I don’t think it changes much – and it’s a mistake if that’s what they thought. Nothing can prevent the rise of second layer solutions.

  • LightningHuang
    7 months ago LightningHuang

    Thank you for reading, I am the author of this article. This article in the Chinese community to get a lot of people opposed, they even abuse me. I did not expect so many people can seriously read and seriously discuss in here. Thank you very much.

  • btchip
    7 months ago btchip

    Them why call my free responses to your nonsense “stalking”?

    Because they’re not on topic but still addressed to me ?

    Do you feel like a victim?

    No, just pointing out your behavior

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    It isn’t about preventing the rise, it is about the trade-off on how much off-chain solutions there will be, and how easy they are compared to on-chain Bitcoin.

    I am not trying to make a black and white argument here.

  • Bitcoinopoly
    7 months ago Bitcoinopoly

    Believe the blockchain. Read it and weep, troll.

  • Bitcoinopoly
    7 months ago Bitcoinopoly

    Yeah, because you’re probably wasting a ton of money on unnecessary crap.

  • awemany
    7 months ago awemany

    You are welcome. We obviously are all very interested in Chinese sentiment, as the majority of hash power comes out of China. And I think most of us (myself included) do not speak a single word Chinese.

  • Investwisely11
    7 months ago Investwisely11

    10 min confirm is impractical for most trades and even if it was practical it would still be much more convenient not having to wait. LN is inevitable

  • H0dlr
    7 months ago H0dlr

    No, 0 conf has worked well for years.

  • Investwisely11
    7 months ago Investwisely11

    Because the vast majority of transactions are done online, commerce in real life would be impractical.

  • H0dlr
    7 months ago H0dlr

    Online commerce isn’t effected by the 10 min confirmation time. Brick and mortar commerce likewise can handle the small risks associated with 0 conf.

  • Investwisely11
    7 months ago Investwisely11

    Online commerce isn’t effected by the 10 min confirmation time

    Did I say it was?

    Brick and mortar commerce likewise can handle the small risks associated with 0 conf.

    Oh so there is risk involved now in your theory…

  • H0dlr
    7 months ago H0dlr

    Lol, there always has been small risk with 0 conf. When did i ever say there wasn’t. But 7y of history showed it is insignificant.

  • Investwisely11
    7 months ago Investwisely11

    If only there was a solution with zero risk…

    But 7y of history showed it is insignificant.

    That’s because hardly any merchant accept 0 conf so people have no incentive to even try a double spend

Please sign in first