The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

Re:The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centrali... by I_am_tiberius on Monday January 06, 2020 @10:31PM (#21976557)

Comparing the lightning network with a bank is totally incorrect. Your funds cannot be seized and the middlemen privacy aspect is very similar to the Tor network. I don't think there is a better way of solving a decentralized payment system.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centrali... by bduerst on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @11:56AM (#21993200)

Lightning is the same as writing a check. Until it's verified on the bitcoin network, it's just like a bank in that regard.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centrali... by I_am_tiberius on Thursday January 09, 2020 @02:01AM (#21999109)

But there's no way the bitcoin network doesn't accept the settlement. A bank can just throw checks away if they like.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centrali... by bduerst on Thursday January 09, 2020 @01:29PM (#22003938)

Bitcoin will not accept a settlement if the wallet no longer has funds.

Banks throwing away checks is not a problem. Bouncing checks are a fraud problem, which is why most everyone have moved on from using checks is many situations.

Lightning's solution is to just 'watch' everyone you do transactions with, which is a lazy, non-viable solution analagous to continuously watching an anonymous stranger's bank account when they write you a check.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centrali... by wayoutthere on Monday January 06, 2020 @10:37PM (#21976592)

Tor is a privacy nightmare; not sure what the situation is currently but at one point the US government ran something like 10% of the exit nodes. This is how a lot of the "dark web" operators got caught until folks caught on and switched up their opsec.

[ Parent | on HN ]