• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Dash needs to implement Lightening Network

Should Dash utilize Master Nodes to create a Decentralized Lightening Network?


  • Total voters
    8

xdashguy

Member
Bitcoin is currently working on the implementation of a lightening network which will be a powerful component of scaling. However, Bitcoin lacks the tools that Dash has to make it a truly good experience and decentralized. This is an opportunity for Dash.

The issue with the lightening network as currently envisioned is the problem:

Routing: Payment channels are bidirectional between two parties. This means when A and C want to transact, but there is no direct link between them, they will have to route between a third party (B) to complete the chain A -> B -> C.

The problem is that routing is very complex issue and there does not seem to be any solution to do it in a decentralized way. Unless you know the entire network topology it will be hard to find a path in the network between distant nodes. Not even counting the fact each node in the chain must have at least the amount you sending as collateral or else that chain cannot be used. The consequence of this will be centralized payment hubs will form. The reason being that the more centralized it is the less routing issue and less topology needs to be known and less fees there will be.

Where is the Dash opportunity? Dash can turn every Master Node into a payment channel utilizing the 1000 DASH collateral for the Master Node as payment channel collateral. This will mean that the Dash Master Node system can become the premier hub taking place of what a centralized hub would provide in bitcoin. The Dash Master Nodes with 1000 DASH collateral will provide a good amount of liquidity for payment hub transactions (transactions > 1000 will have to be broken up into several distinct transactions).

This will make Dash more decentralized than bitcoin and will make Dash's use of the lightening node technology superior. In implementation of the wallet, the wallet would setup bidirectional payment channels with 2-3 master nodes and that would be the users lightening access to the network. Each masternode would in turn create 2-3 channels to other masternodes. And through this you can see there is a connected network of nodes with multiple routes to each node (even if a node goes offline).

This is a Dash opportunity that I hope the community will see the potential of and implement as it could propel Dash forward.
 
Masternodes have no access to collaterals which means they can't utilize 1000 DASH to provide hub service.
 
Masternodes have no access to collaterals which means they can't utilize 1000 DASH to provide hub service.

I know that is the way it is now. However, the way masternode collateral works could make it so locking the money in a payment channel is used for collateral? So, change the way collateral is done so that money locked in a payment channel to provide lightening network liquidity is the same.

New DASH already does InstantX.

InstantX has nothing to do with lightening network. They serve entirely different purposes. The purpose of lightening network is to make microtransactions possible without polluting the blockchain and it also has the effect of increasing anonymity.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but iirc Lightning hubs are pure hot nodes i.e. they have private keys for the funds they provide. We've been there at the very beginning and moved to a much more secure hot/cold setup. I doubt MNOs would like to downgrade their security that way.
 
Let's let bitcoin fix bitcoin.
Micro-payments are for bitcoin's bloat.
DASH has bloat under control and anonymity taken care of.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but iirc Lightning hubs are pure hot nodes i.e. they have private keys for the funds they provide. We've been there at the very beginning and moved to a much more secure hot/cold setup. I doubt MNOs would like to downgrade their security that way.

Yes, you are correct. Okay, so what is Dash's plan to solve the scalability issue of the blockchain and micropayment issue? As it stands today the blockchain as a database does not scale to the necessary transactions needed. Dash currently is okay because it is relatively unused. However, if it was used by millions of people there would be a serious issue. Is there anything in the roadmap to resolve this?
 
Show me a scalability issue.
DASH scales just fine.
Like 1,500,000 transactions a second.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you are correct. Okay, so what is Dash's plan to solve the scalability issue of the blockchain and micropayment issue? As it stands today the blockchain as a database does not scale to the necessary transactions needed. Dash currently is okay because it is relatively unused. However, if it was used by millions of people there would be a serious issue. Is there anything in the roadmap to resolve this?
I believe Evo has some plans for it but we can also reuse masternodes for the Lightning in another way - every MN has mnprivkey which means it can control _some_ funds in corresponding mnpubkey which is known by the network. When Lightning is ready and all necessary code is merged into dash code base we can add another MN requirements which would be smth like "keep at least X DASH on your mnpubkey". X could be smth like 10 DASH which should 1) be affordable risk/amount to have on hot node 2) not add too much incentive to attack hot nodes 3) be more than enough for micropayments. This also would require to add some code to tie mn system and Lightning together, but seems doable (at least now, when I hadn't look deeper :D).
 
You keep using that word,
Lightning,
I don't think it means what you think it means.

btw Lightening isn't going to let you walk into a merchant and do an instant transaction. It's built on payment channels where you and the merchant would need to enter into (essentially) a contract where you both commit an upfront amount of Bitcoin before you transact. after that you can do 'instant transactions' in the sense you exchange meta data / tally up your balances off-chain and if one party reneges the other can close the channel and reclaim the balance. if you lose that meta data you lose your coins too in that scenario, not like an HD seed you can write on a piece of paper. it's really a cost-reduction solution for settlements between centralized ecosystem providers (and theoretically a scaling 'solution' if that results in less on-chain transactions). zero chance end users will benefit from it in terms of security or decentralization or have any easy way to use it i think. Plus the implementation is a mess. Blockstream devs are good at modest core protocol changes and narrow-scope cryptographic problems within the paradigm that Satoshi had got to when he/she left. That's why we merge that to our T1 protocol. In Evolution we have our own solution that stores the meta data in the network so you can do this on mobile (and setup channels by adding a merchant's service listing in the wallet). it's a long way off, but a decentralized end-user solution.
 
Like 1,500,000 transactions a second.

You really uninformed. Dash cannot do anywhere near that. It might be able to do that for a specific time (which is really just queueing transactions), but it is still limited by how fast blocks are added to the chain in the long-term. If there were sustained transactions above this number, then transactions would literally begin to queue forever.
 
Back
Top