Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by 0wing 3095 days ago
1. If LN works to scale, it should be deployed. It's not, and has not for years.

2. You have absolutely no way to accurately verify or anticipate that claim.

Feel free to provide a retort to my claim that Bitcoin is flawed from Satoshi's implementation and upon examination of the computer science and codebase behind BTC, the false equivalence to gold and store of value will fail as it becomes obsolete to something else.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15991762

3. Brahm Cohen is suggesting a prerequisite of 3 escrow deposits, which would require 6 transaction fees.

This is a bizarre answer to the article he was responding to, as it fails to avoid the gravitation towards payment processor style hubs.

  Also there’s nothing wrong with long routes. They settle 
  out in the middle just fine, despite the author’s 
  dismissiveness to the possibility that they can.
With Brahm's prerequisite, the LN will still be diverted towards the single large payment processor style hubs which can supply enough liquidity to open up routes and deposits with many other users.

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-...
1 comments
agorabinary 3095 days ago
1. LN is not deployed because it is conservatively developed like all development in a space with $500B on the line.

2. My claim is simply that Bitcoin is worth significantly more with LN than without? You then take a more preliminary argument that Bitcoin is worthless to begin with, which is laughable.

3. 6 on-chain transaction fees that support millions of off-chain payments. And your hub argument is a feature of a distributed network itself, not of LN in particular. Say a "hub" emerges and starts charging fees. Market competition paired with efficient routing solves this easily.

If you don't understand Brahm's argument, I suggest reading through it again. He's a pretty smart guy when it comes to distributed networks.

link