Each block is stacked on top of the previous one. Adding another block to the top makes all lower blocks more difficult to remove: there is more "weight" above each block. A transaction in a block 6 blocks deep (6 confirmations) will be very difficult to remove. vertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertised sitesare not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They maybe unsafe, untrustworthy,or illegal in yoururisdiction. Advertise here.

Razick



Offline



Activity: 1330

Merit: 1002







LegendaryActivity: 1330Merit: 1002 Re: Is Lightning network truly centralized? August 21, 2017, 04:56:45 PM #2 I have heard many rumors about the Lightning Network being at least partially centralized. I cannot say if it is 100% though as I am not an expert in it. In fact, I watched a video by one of the main developers and find it quite complex and hard to understand, technically speaking. Heck, I don't even understand https all that well which is the equivalent tech for the internet. At the end of the day, as long as it doesn't interfere with my privacy or ability to control my own money and most importantly improves Bitcoin, then I am all for it. ACCOUNT RECOVERED 4/27/2020. Account was previously hacked sometime in 2017. Posts between 12/31/2016 and 4/27/2020 are NOT LEGITIMATE.

thecodebear



Offline



Activity: 966

Merit: 187







Full MemberActivity: 966Merit: 187 Re: Is Lightning network truly centralized? August 21, 2017, 05:21:42 PM #3 From what I understand it will work like the middle picture. There will be multiple LN providers, just meaning that they have created their own implementation of the LN (several companies have already been working on their own LN implementations). So yes the LN will be routed through these centralized providers who run the LN. There will likely be at least several of them though, creating the middle image where there are multiple LN provider nodes in the graph that route LN transactions from bitcoin users. I don't know if they will all communicate to create one single larger LN network like in the picture or just each LN provider will have their own set of clients (wallets that use their LN), created multiple smaller completely centralized Lightning Networks with only one provider in each network.





I don't really see a huge problem in centralization of LN as long as the different provider nodes all connect together to form one big LN network. Bitcoin itself will still be decentralized, and LN will be somewhat decentralized with major LN centralized hubs.

n4poleon



Offline



Activity: 252

Merit: 100







Full MemberActivity: 252Merit: 100 Re: Is Lightning network truly centralized? August 28, 2017, 09:24:12 AM #11 It has a degree of centralization, in terms of hubs (payment channels) as hubs will take a role of intermediaries, in a sense that, it is an intermediary of your transaction to the chain. In my opinion, it is a trade-off if you want efficiency. However, those channels are trustless in theory.

Carlton Banks



Offline



Activity: 2842

Merit: 2279









LegendaryActivity: 2842Merit: 2279 Re: Is Lightning network truly centralized? August 28, 2017, 10:05:58 AM #12 Quote from: figmentofmyass on August 22, 2017, 11:14:53 PM Quote from: gentlemand on August 21, 2017, 06:21:20 PM Let's see an actual LN in operation and how it operates it before deciding anything. Much has been theorised. Nothing has been proven.



that's my take. and it goes both ways; we can't hold the lightning network up to be the answer to all scalability questions, because we haven't seen it work in practice. some tests, sure, but nothing on mainnet, and nothing at the scale that we need to make it useful for bitcoin.



i'm not concerned about centralization and hub-and-spoke as long as the trust model is secure, and there is no custodial trust involved. as far as i can tell, there isn't, so i fully support LN. how much value it will provide remains to be seen.

that's my take. and it goes both ways; we can't hold the lightning network up to be the answer to all scalability questions, because we haven't seen it work in practice. some tests, sure, but nothing on mainnet, and nothing at the scale that we need to make it useful for bitcoin.i'm not concerned about centralization and hub-and-spoke as long as the trust model is secure, and there is no custodial trust involved. as far as i can tell, there isn't, so i fully support LN. how much value it will provide remains to be seen.



Concurred.



There will be bigger and smaller nodes in the network, which is no different to any network where the participants can choose the amount of resources they use in order to participate, this happens with both the Bitcoin network, the cell phone network or the internet itself. Lightning node operators will necessarily need more resources than Bitcoin network participants do, but those resources are..... some BTC. And everyone on the Bitcoin network probably has some BTC anyway, it's just a common sense reason to use the Bitcoin network, not a requirement. So the on-chain "scaling" proponents can exhort us all to join them crying themselves to sleep like this if they want to, but it just is what it is, sorry gentlemen.



Lightning is not the complete answer to the scalability problem, but it sure as hell has huge potential to be either one technology in line-up of scaling solutions, or a stepping stone to whatever scaling tech predominates in the end (and it will very likely be a 2nd layer network, leveraging the combination of high security and user led consensus that the blockchain gives us the way the current balance of incentives is structured on the Bitcoin network). The only route that's not going anywhere much is the so-called "on-chain scaling" ideas. Sure, we can aggregate signatures and other such tricks to encode blockchain transactions more efficiently, but it's never going to create the magnitude of transaction increases needed to allow Bitcoin to fully compete against the euro, dollar or yuan. Concurred.There will be bigger and smaller nodes in the network, which is no different to any network where the participants can choose the amount of resources they use in order to participate, this happens with both the Bitcoin network, the cell phone network or the internet itself. Lightning node operators will necessarily need more resources than Bitcoin network participants do, but those resources are..... some BTC. And everyone on the Bitcoin network probably has some BTC anyway, it's just a common sense reason to use the Bitcoin network, not a requirement. So the on-chain "scaling" proponents can exhort us all to join them crying themselves to sleep like this if they want to, but it just is what it is, sorry gentlemen.Lightning is not the complete answer to the scalability problem, but it sure as hell has huge potential to be either one technology in line-up of scaling solutions, or a stepping stone to whatever scaling tech predominates in the end (and it will very likely be a 2nd layer network, leveraging the combination of high security and user led consensus that the blockchain gives us the way the current balance of incentives is structured on the Bitcoin network). The only route that's not going anywhere much is the so-called "on-chain scaling" ideas. Sure, we can aggregate signatures and other such tricks to encode blockchain transactions more efficiently, but it's never going to create the magnitude of transaction increases needed to allow Bitcoin to fully compete against the euro, dollar or yuan. Vires in numeris

lottery248



Offline



Activity: 1288

Merit: 1001





Boi, boi mah!







LegendaryActivity: 1288Merit: 1001Boi, boi mah! Re: Is Lightning network truly centralized? August 28, 2017, 10:41:03 AM #14 Quote from: Sevvero on August 21, 2017, 09:08:28 PM LN is centralized in small banker hubs. You don't have to use them. If you pay 50$ fee you can send via on chain.



but in the current bitcoin blockchain is suffering from the high amount of fee due to the so far major amount of unconfirmed transactions. i don't mean i don't like bitcoin doing so, it is similar to bitcoin network of now. i don;t sure other than that. but in the current bitcoin blockchain is suffering from the high amount of fee due to the so far major amount of unconfirmed transactions. i don't mean i don't like bitcoin doing so, it is similar to bitcoin network of now. i don;t sure other than that. out of ability to use the signature, i want a new ban strike policy that will fade the strike after 90~120 days of the ban and not to be traced back, like google | email me for anything urgent, message will possibly not be instantly responded

i am not really active for some reason