phillipsjk

10 ms·

1.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
I am not holding my breath.
2.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
Correction: that was simulated testing, using scraped channel data and a LNBig blog post (about traffic statistics) to validate the results.
3.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
I guess I stand corrected on that one.
4.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
> though if you don't like them you're free to not use it. No true: due to limited block space on the base-layer. I am not convinced you get any efficiency increase with the LN: just more difficult capacity planning because
5.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
Researchers have done black-box capacity testing. It can process around 7,000 transactions per day. Even BTC can handle that volume on-chain. https://blog.dshr.org/2020/01/bitcoins-lightning-network.htm...
6.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
According to a recent study, the privacy properties of the lighting Network are weak. The problem with lightning privacy is that to get good privacy you need more than about 2 hops. The problem is that every hop locks up money equal to the
7.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
You got fooled by a slick marketing campaign. Around fork time, there was a coordinated push, including websites, subreddits, youtube videos (title of video by jimmy Song interviewing Roger Ver was first known use), and the censored 'b
8.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
Compact block were heavily inspired by Bitcoin Unlimited's "Thin Blocks".
9.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
I disagree that the LN paper made conservative assumptions. A "black swan" event like a major lightning hub going down may force more channel closings than the network (as currently implemented) has time to process before time-out
10.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
Unlike the base layer, the LN uses source routing: which was abandoned years ago. Requiring the endpoints to know the structure of the network graph leads to intractable routing problems at scale.
11.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
Of course the fees would drop after raising the blocksize. The current fees are well above the marginal transaction costs of processing and storing those transactions. (I estimated it was 3cents/kB, assuming GB scale blocks on ~1000 4U
12.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
It is called BRD wallet. (originally Bread Wallet)
13.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
Also, BSV seems to be a parody of Bitcoin Cash (BCH). You wanted large blocks? We'll give you large blocks!
14.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
Since you read the Lighting whitepaper, you know that an uncongested base-layer is assumed. The paper suggests something like 133MB blocks at scale.
15.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
On-chain scaling does not prevent that. In fact, it reduces complexity by removing the Lighting requirement. Tangent: I would not recommend running lightning on such hardware. State is local to the node, unlike with on-chain scaling. That i
16.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
Blockstream (Which funds Core developers) was funded by AXA Strategic Ventures with about $80Million in two rounds. Digital Currency Group, which has investment in a lot of Bitcoin companies has a controlling interest from MasterCard. That
17.
by phillipsjk 7y ago
Scaling with second layers instead of on-chain is NOT "sound engineering" The Engineering discipline relies on empirical studies. With constantly full blocks, you have no way to measure transaction demand. Fees are only a weak ind