[ad_1]
Lightning Network (LN)
has been hailed by many as the solution to the scalability of the Bitcoin network.
problem. However, the founder of EOS, Dan Larimer, believes that there are many
problems badociated with this solution.
Dan Larimer believes LN has problems
Dan Larimer, while expressing his
think about Lightning Network, think it's a big protocol. He added
that the problems of this solution are too numerous, without deepening them.
However, Larimer is not the only one
with such a view. Peter Ruzin, data scientist and cryptocurrency enthusiast,
recently published a blog highlighting the problems behind the LN solution.
While talking about it, Ruzin crunches the Layer 2 solution saying: "The Lightning Network is a solution for the big
transaction fees that only work when transaction fees are low."
Lily: Here's why Bitcoin Lightning
Network capacity greater than $ 4.2 million
Ruzin predicted that in the future
where there would be small blocks and high mining costs, the lightning entities would be
lose customer funds, prevent customers from moving their money and billing
Exorbitant routing and liquidity costs of customers. When that happens, then
centralization would be defined in bitcoin, something we try to avoid
since the creation of cryptocurrency.
According to the blog, LN payments of less than US $ 0.02 are not without confidence, so US $ 50 could end up requiring trust as well if costs increase. The complaints are that the Lightning Network (LN) Locked-In Contract (HTLC) is not working for small payments. At the default rate of 10 nBTC / vbyte, it is not profitable to claim micro-payment routed below 2,000 nBTC (0.008 USD to 4,000 USD / BTC). As fees increase, more and more micro-payments become useless.
When LN channels have to route payment in the dust limit, they reduce these HTLCs by increasing the potential transaction costs of their channel by the amount of micro-payment rather than adding an HTLC. This fee pays minors if the circuit is closed in a state that includes this fee. However, by mutual agreement between the counterparties of the chain, the cost can be deleted later.
LN has other problems
Ruzin in his post pointed out that
lack of absolute trust in the NL is just one of the reasons this
The sizing solution is not ideal. He adds that LN is scaling transactions and not
users, and for this reason, the cost of running a complete validation node
always be high. There is also a liquidity problem, as most wealthy states can not
to be reached via Lightning transactions, which implies that payment failures are
inevitable.
On the question of centralization, Ruzin
said that Lightning hubs should be centralized to be able to reduce
routing and eliminate liquidity problems. In addition, average costs of minors
on LN would not be enough to secure the Bitcoin blockchain when the block
the reward is exhausting.
Read also: OpenNode announces a Shopify
Bitcoin Lightning Network Plugin
These defects are also caused by
at the front complains that some users are losing funds on lightning channels
for no reason despite not making transactions.
While LN has been rented in some
quarters for the fantastic work he's done on the bitcoin blockchain he's
evident that there are still problems to be solved, particularly among
which is the centralization and its inability to work with low transactions
the volumes. David Harding, a Bitcoin writer, is positive and encouraging.
believes that there are solutions. However, they are not worth taking care of
at the moment.
I saw a blog post by @PeterRizun stating that current LN payments below about US $ 0.02 are not without confidence, so that US $ 50 could also require trust if costs increase However, there are solutions; they are simply not worth the trouble of dealing with (IMO) at $ 0.02. Details: https://t.co/qNoiSHddnE
– David A. Harding (@hrdng) March 28, 2019
[ad_2]
Source link
