Scaling Issue | Incentivised nodes vs Lightening Network

Incentivised nodes vs Lightening Network? Give reasons why.

  • Incentivised nodes (Masternodes)

  • Lightening Network


Results are only viewable after voting.

ANAEDV

Active Member
Foundation Member
Jun 20, 2014
17
14
103
Manchester UK
I have been doing some research lately on the scaling issue with blockchain technology over the last year or two. I have been invested in Dash since before this was as big of an issue as it is today or rather before it was realised to be the magnitude of issue it is. I decided some time ago now that the incentivised two tier Masternode model is the best-known method to resolve the scaling issue. I see it as a hardware issue really and no software update can to my knowledge ever fix the issue the same way a hardware fix could. I see it as comparing improving a photo you can either buy a better camera for a higher resolution photo or add a filter, you tell me which improves the photo more.


Bitcoin Cash seem to be on the right track but it puzzles me that they haven’t foreseen the issue that if they do not have incentivised nodes on their network that by increasing the block size the costs incurred running a node will increase and because altruism only stretches so far the number of nodes ran will subsequently decrease. They in my opinion have either under estimated the size requirement of a mainstream adopted network, over estimated altruism aspects or don’t really believe crypto currency will reach mass adoption.


Bitcoin core, while I admit my knowledge on blockchain technology is rudimentary so as far as the complex mathematics that goes into it, so I rely on market experts like Evan Duffield to confirm with the legitimacy of the software behind the scenes. Everyone in this space is predominantly here because of the blockchain, the ability to validate information between multiple parties in vastly differing geographical locations in a trustless manner without using a third party and in a decentralised way is why cryptocurrencies fundamentally hold the value they do.

If someone could then explain to me why LN (Lightning Network) being a centralised database where transactions are confirmed using smart contracts which is obviously neglecting to use the blockchain is considered to be an update? It sounds to me that the LN main focus is to essentially hold 1000's if not 100,000's of transactions in smart contracts when the mempool is oversubscribed until there is a lull. However surely as the network receives more adopters the window of opportunity will completely close and we will end up in much the same position we are in now, with potentially millions of transactions confirmed through smart contracts but unable to be populated through the blockchain ledger due to backlog.

I’ve read that transactions can be consolidated thus reducing the number of transactions that will need to be added to the blockchain. Has any research been done on the potential reduction? Has this been put into practice now with Litecoin having LN?

Let’s assume that Bitcoin fixes the scaling issue with the LN. Why are they not willing to concede the fact that the LN being centralized isn't a cause for concern and opposite to the philosophy of what Satoshi Nakamoto intended. Surely this central repository being in a localised place leaves it open to being taken out. What provisions are in place for the subsequent loss of data through an attack?

I just felt with all of the trolling I’m seeing lately from Bitcoin core, Litecoin and Monero towards Dash that I had to have my two cents on this. I’d be happy to have a debate on this with anyone or indeed educated on where I’ve gone wrong in my understanding of this issue. This is just one of the many reasons why I’m invested in Dash and thankfully through the hardwork of our great team and an amazing community we have already achieved amazing things and after attending the recent London conference I’m more excited in our future than ever.

In regards to the poll, I understand that the responses will likely be biased towards Dash's solution but I think it'll be interesting to see the results.

Thanks

ANAEDV | Ancapzero
Twitter: @Ancapzero
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhkien

akhavr

Active Member
Oct 11, 2014
814
406
133
Why do you consider Lightning Network a centralized database?

It's kinda more centralized than a bitcoin network itself, but it's definitely not a centralized DB
 

ANAEDV

Active Member
Foundation Member
Jun 20, 2014
17
14
103
Manchester UK
Why do you consider Lightning Network a centralized database?

It's kinda more centralized than a bitcoin network itself, but it's definitely not a centralized DB
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6jrmri/lightning_network_increased_centralisation_what/

From what I can see in the discussions on Reddit about the mathematical proof that LN cannot scale Bitcoin in a decentralised way. It seems that the Bitcoin Core team have conceded that it is indeed centralised as they've provided no evidence to suggest that it isn't centralised.

If it isn't in fact centralised there are a myriad of other issues this brings to Bitcoin stated in the article linked above.

Furthermore Bitcoin is already difficult for the average person to use. Lightening network serves to make it far more complicated.

I think they've completely lost sight of their stated goals and the Dash core team through Dash is the only entity in this space fulfilling the need which is to replace the current debt based fiat currency model and give the people back their economic freedom.

Even if we put the scaling issue to one side for the time being. What improvements to UI/UX has Bitcoin core been working on or had implemented even in he last 4 years before Dash.

Because they don't have an adaquate governance system and aren't self funded (like Dash) I don't see how they'll have a chance at competing. I believe this will be the single most important feature Dash has and it is still vastly underestimated by our competition.
 

akhavr

Active Member
Oct 11, 2014
814
406
133
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6jrmri/lightning_network_increased_centralisation_what/

From what I can see in the discussions on Reddit about the mathematical proof that LN cannot scale Bitcoin in a decentralised way. It seems that the Bitcoin Core team have conceded that it is indeed centralised as they've provided no evidence to suggest that it isn't centralised.
Thanks for the reference. I've read first two parts and glanced over the rest. So far I've spotted at least two stretches by the author were his assumptions and models are questionable.

Yet, I think the main problem of the LN on Bitcoin isn't the one he brings. The issue is - again - scalability: to bring everyone onto LN would require years just to post "open the channel" transaction onto the current bitcoin blockchain.


I think they've completely lost sight of their stated goals and the Dash core team through Dash is the only entity in this space fulfilling the need which is to replace the current debt based fiat currency model and give the people back their economic freedom.
Bitcoin Core, as far as I see, are far more concerned with keeping Bitcoin as a reliable store of value than making it a p2p cash system. And I have nothing against it - I'm not sure one can achieve both goals on the same blockchain.

Because they don't have an adaquate governance system and aren't self funded (like Dash) I don't see how they'll have a chance at competing. I believe this will be the single most important feature Dash has and it is still vastly underestimated by our competition.
Don't drink kool aid, Dash has its own issues and it's just a matter of time when a competing protocol/fork will appear to fix them. Better focus on moving forward and fixing them than patting each other on the back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Micheal Houvardas

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,958
1,140
1,183
@ANAEDV Imo you are correct about segcoin. Sorry, I'm not sure if it can be considered "bitcoin" anymore, unless everyone refuses to use segwit addresses (unlikely).

The thing about payment channels is, you don't need a blockchain to do it, it's just a tab! No less than using a crypto debit card and calling it "decentralized".

The atomic swaps are interesting, but probably limited to other segwit coins. Tbh, I'm making a point of only using segwit addresses for hot wallets because I believe segwit will get hacked within two years.

The overall dex space is filling out quite rapidly as they try to find their niche. I think eventually two or three will rise to the top and the lines will be drawn as high liquidity, high privacy, and something in-between.

Tbh, I support all the big blockers; dash, bitcoin cash and digibyte. On-chain transactions are the only way forward, else what's the point of a blockchain? I think the open source hardware being developed will be adopted by all the big blockers.

Regarding bitcoin cash, I think Amaury Séchet is a lot smarter than people give credit. I wouldn't be so surprised if bitcoin cash adopted masternodes or something similar.

Bitcoin is a mess, The maximalists are already divided and confused as to which is the "real bitcoin". Imo, things are going to get a lot worse.

Bitcoin is COBOL, the rest of the world is moving on, thankfully.
 

djcrypto

Member
May 27, 2014
180
94
88
Bitcoin and BitcoinCash mining is far too monopolized to provide a "decentralized" masternode-type second tier governance. My guess is they dont want to draw attention to that fact so they offer a software patch with a cute name to hide the fact that the emperor is segregated from his clothes.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk