24 upvotes, 4 direct replies (showing 4)
View submission: ⚡ Lightning Network Megathread ⚡
I admit I don't understand much of the lightning network, but based on other posts it seems that running LN nodes is hard to do for regular users because it's very power-demanding, and will likely be run by bigger setups. So this then sounds very much of what BCH was criticised for; bigger blocks leading to the inability for regular users to run nodes leading to centralisation. What am I missing?
Comment by TabascoOnFoods at 12/01/2018 at 18:41 UTC
3 upvotes, 3 direct replies
You’re not understanding that lightning is a second layer. The important properties are already embedded in Bitcoin. The first layer is where it is important for us to be able to run full Bitcoin nodes and lock in robust security and decentralization. Although the people that care to run full nodes will be running lightning as well. Myself included.
Comment by Godspiral at 12/01/2018 at 18:47 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
You can be a client of a centralized service. You can also ignore lightning, and coffee transactions on it don't need to be saved 100 years from now.
Comment by jaydoors at 12/01/2018 at 18:42 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
LN nodes don’t really have any power- any more than nodes routing packets on the Internet do. The only nodes that will have power over you is the one you have a channel to. But you can close that and get your funds any time.
Also remember ln is an additional option- it’s not like the main chain is being superseded.
Comment by chargedcapacitor at 12/01/2018 at 19:14 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Bigger blocks are only bad in the long run. That is to say, the size of the blockchain will increase faster than the average consumer electronic storage device price decreases, which leads to only large systems being able to run a node.
It is to my understanding that lightning nodes are large to begin with, but do not increase in size in the same way as creating bigger blocks does. So that makes it more future / centralization proof.