[randomhodler84]

And he is completely utterly off base with that. It just doesn’t match reality.

Anyone can run a LN node; you are free to open channels and interact with the network without any centralized controller. For any definition of centralized I know (say, 1 big api provider, or a collection of PoS stake nodes), this does not apply to LN.

There is no censorship possible in this construction — indeed the peers routing the payments don’t even know the originator, just liquidity levels between their channels. Analogous to onion routing — how can a peer censor a circuit if they don’t know the originating and destination endpoints?

Calling Lightning centralized is something an ignorant precoiner would say. Really, rvz doesn’t know what they are talking about.

[rvz]

> Calling Lightning centralized is something an ignorant precoiner would say. Really, rvz doesn’t know what they are talking about.

And somehow you do? Assuming you have read both the paper I linked to and this article? I know it's difficult to read the cold hard truth and evidence on what the Lightning Network has become and will tend towards to in the future via the analysis and inspection. But of course, why would anyone expect someone who calls themselves 'randomhodler' or a Bitcoin maximalist to understand that? Since to them, anyone critiquing anything related to 'Bitcoin' will be like attacking their identity, investment and the technology all in one?

So somehow according to you, it is not 'centralized by design' as the paper has clearly demonstrated, and Bitcoin has somehow 'succeeded' in on-chain peer-to-peer electronic payments as described in the white-paper, due to the Lightning Network which that is an off-chain L2 solution and doesn't directly use the blockchain?

The problem with using anecdotes is that it is not evidence or a concrete refutation against the paper. "I can run one myself" isn't the point. The actual reality has been outlined by the paper on what happens when the Lightning Network grows and it leads towards inevitable centralization of these hubs with the most liquidity (take a guess who runs those hubs) - creating a worse version of the current traditional system without directly using the blockchain for on-chain payments with a volatile ' store of value' as a 'currency' and altogether contradicting the point of Bitcoin.

The whole point of it is to be used for on-chain payments, a digital currency and a P2P electronic cash system and it is evident that in El Salvador, the paper I linked and the inevitability of the LN have clearly demonstrated that this experiment has failed in all of that.

If that's not a failure, then I don't know what is.

[randomhodler84]

Physics paper that defines a model demonstrating centralization of value topology in a network of about 2 years production age with data from 2018-2019. Looking at channel balances and emergent channel topology.

I don’t disagree with their conclusions, however I don’t think it follows with your conclusions. Nor do they really matter today. For one, they don’t actually have the visibility into the transaction volumes, just aggregate channels, so their analysis is limited to distribution of value — analogous to blockchain analysis that only looks at output balances and their associated other outputs. Additionally, this space moves fast and any cryptocurrency data from 2018 is of less value post 2020.

If we are arguing that decentralization of value is removed from peer to peer cryptocurrencies, I think this technology cannot deliver, indeed this is a socioeconomic issue rather than the technology. Of course the Gini coefficient is going to model the society that produces this tech, especially today.

What is your criteria of failure here? You absolutely love saying “Bitcoin has failed” or “Lightning network has failed”, but at what? For some socioeconomic centralization of value metric? Ok cool but that’s not what Bitcoiners are getting at.

I think you believe that the technology did not live up to its promises. I don’t agree, but I can see how one could feel that way. Now, I ask you, what is the alternative? It’s all well and good to deny existing technology as achieving its goal, but what should we do instead? If you think blockchain as a construction cannot remain decentralized in the face of spam bots and worldwide tx load, what are our alternatives that could possibly lead to this optimistic decentralized solutions?

[arcbyte]

> What is your criteria of failure here? You absolutely love saying “Bitcoin has failed” or “Lightning network has failed”, but at what?

Both rvz and I have been really clear about the failure

rvz: > Bitcoin has failed for on-chain payments as described in this article, this paper [0] and it's own white-paper.

Me: > bitcoin really did fail at its core goal of being a currency.

As I went on to say, the failure at being a currency doesn't preclude it finding success at something else (and its price suggests its finding it).