The conundrum at the heart of BTC is that you have to introduce a second layer in order to work around the inherent limitations of the first. But at that point you may as well do away with that first layer, and then will have simply re-invented PayPay, which only goes to show how "blockchain technology" is almost entirely useless.

How has lightning network re-invented paypal? One is a custodial way to store and transfer money, another is a decentralized non-custodial way to store and transfer money. It couldn't be more different.

>But at that point you may as well do away with that first layer, and then will have simply re-invented PayPay, which only goes to show how "blockchain technology" is almost entirely useless.

the lightning network isn't going to freeze your funds for 180 days because they think your account is suspicious.

No, it would have its own bullshit to deal with, we just haven't seen it yet.

I remember getting "this feature is currently suspended" messages on kraken when trying to pull my money out during the last bitcoin crash.

> you have to introduce a second layer in order to work around the inherent limitations

Not true, the block size was intended to deal with this exact issue.

That shortsighted. Blockchain tech isn't only bitcoin. There are solutions to the problems bitcoins has and they are working fine since years. BTW the link includes the transaction fees on the XRPL you probably didn't see it because the line is almost flat and almost at zero.

Blockchains or rather DLTs are here to stay - bitcoin probably not.

In 10 years from now, everyone would have easy to use/intuitive lightning network wallets and all exchanges would have integrated it.

Again, no need to keep track of every coffee transaction permanently forever on the blockchain, it's just not efficient.

The lightning network relies on looking up BTC which the user has to pay for. Its impossible to be dirt cheap because someone earns money on every Tx. Its the opposite or what p2p cash is supposed to do - it should remove the middlemen. It does not remove it, it just decentralizes it. Its still someone there sucking out value for something that should essentially cost the same as sending an email.

In one year from now there will probably be coins that can do >1,000 TPS on layer 1 with negligible fees with intuitive wallets and all exchanges will have integrated them.

These coins exists already since many years. See XRPL.org for the oldest "better bitcoin project". It has tested 1500 TPS and block time of a few seconds and on top of that a fully working second layer for high volume channels between 2 parties where the TPS is only limited by the speed of the hardware. It on average has more transaction per day than bitcoin ever had and it does that since years.

It's worth nothing those coins also took some liberties when it comes to establishing consensus. I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority".

>I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority".

You are wrong on that. Every node locally applies all the rules to all transaction. There is no way a rule can be broken because your node listens to other who broke the rules. If all your trusted nodes would break the rule your node would simply stop and ask you to connect to proper nodes.

The consensus majority is only needed if there are 2 or more way to make valid (not breaking any rules) forward progress (aka a double spend attempt) Only in this case nodes side with the majority of their trusted nodes. There is no "wrong way" in this case its arbitrary which side the network goes the only thing that matter is that everyone goes the same way. Which is archives if everyone sided with their surrounding majority.

Its very important to understand that if someone would have the control over which side it goes in such a situation he could do absolutely nothing with this "power" as both ways must be valid in the first place.

The only person who "loses out" is the one who attempts a double spend because he has no way to know which Tx will success and which will fail. But no honest participants cares about that. If you attempt a double sends you voluntary let the network pick one.

>You are wrong on that.

>The consensus majority is only needed if there are 2 or more way to make valid (not breaking any rules) forward progress (aka a double spend attempt) Only in this case nodes side with the majority of their trusted nodes.

so basically "if there's a double spend just trust whatever the majority of the trusted nodes say"? It's better than trusting the entire state to the majority of nodes, but still quite centralized compared to other consensus mechanisms.

>"if there's a double spend just trust whatever the majority of the trusted nodes say"

Yes but also no. There is no trust needed because what the other nodes say does not define whats correct its arbitrary. Its only relevant if 2 or more equal good AND correct ways exist. You aren't listing to others to find out the "right" way you solely listen to other so everyone choose the same.

>still quite centralized compared to other consensus mechanisms.

Not at all. If there is a double spend attempt your validator node picks one at "random" (the one it revived first) it then tells every node to include this one an discard the other. All other do that too completely on their own (decentral). Only if this does not lead to 80% agreement everyone is tasked to adjust and vote again. So your node looks what the nodes around them voted and switches if needed to the majority. There is no central anything that tells your node to switch. Your node does so solely because your node doesn't care which way to go but it wants to go the same way ass all others.

All this does it it breaks ties. If there would be a near 50/50 split or 33/33/33 for 3 conflicting transaction, this is guaranteed to shift to something near 100% after some re-voting. Because the existing "majority" grows faster with every re-vote if everyone adjust by these rules. And that's the sole goal. We want the network go agree.

Others however, just increased the block size to allow for more transactions per block and thereby lower fees. This is the intended purpose of the block size as set forth in the Bitcoin whitepaper.

Its not solving the problems its just makes it less severe for a while. There is always an interest for miners to maximize Tx fees. You could make the block size infinite and there would still be no reason for a miner to add all pending Tx. Why would they If they can force people to pay a fee. The solution is to get rid of the fee. That's the only way you can have a system that wants the maximum throughput for the minimum cost, because no one makes money from it. Hence systems like the XRPL dont have real Tx fees they only have a tiny pseudo fee that isn't going to anyone its simply burned instead and only acts as a spam protection.

Why bother settling on the blockchain at all? The second-layer transactions could just float, like the dollar separated from the gold standard.

> The second-layer transactions could just float, like the dollar separated from the gold standard.

You can't mint more bitcoins on the lightning network. There's a 1:1 relation between what's on the lightning network and what's on the blockchain. This is as opposed to fiat (zero relation, currency units can be generated at will), or gold standard in practice (the central bank only having enough gold for a fraction of the notes issued to be redeemed).

A triangle ABC of lightning nodes opens a channel with 1 bitcoin between nodes. 3 bitcoins total.

Each node can have a state with a total of 2 bitcoins. That's 6 bitcoins.

It'd be a race to close channels, and only if the channel value is above the fee-floor, else the settled value is $0.

> A triangle ABC of lightning nodes opens a channel with 1 bitcoin between nodes. 3 bitcoins total.

>Each node can have a state with a total of 2 bitcoins. That's 6 bitcoins.

Well, no. If you want a channel between A and B with 1 BTC capacity in either direction, you'll need to deposit 2 BTC to fund the channel. Therefore there's 6 BTC total that's locked up. As for the rest of your comment, it's not really clear how it's "separated" from the on-chain value.

If you never close channels, you can print infinite Bitcoins. No one knows the true state of a channel until it is settled.

uhh what? It's true that nobody knows what the state of the channel is, but the capacity is known. so they know it would conclude with either party A getting 0.1 BTC (for example), party B getting 0.1 BTC, or somewhere in between.

Sure you can. Just mint some "lightnings" and move on. Nothing stops a large centralized processor from creating its own coin.

L2 is also shit for actual distribution and censorship resistance. Imagine a future where BTC is 100x the current price and the people who got in early are rich as heck and nobody else can afford even a single transaction and must instead rely entirely on L2 services, never actually owning their own wealth.

> Sure you can. Just mint some "lightnings" and move on. Nothing stops a large centralized processor from creating its own coin.

But that's literally not how the lightning network works? If some intermediary in the chain wants to accept IOUs in place of real bitcoins that's on them, but on both ends you're putting in and getting real bitcoins. By "real bitcoins" I mean they can be redeemed at any point in time by closing the channel, and there's no risk of a bank run (at least to the sender and receiver). If some intermediary decides to accept IOUs instead of real bitcoins, that's on them if it comes crashing down.

It isn't how the lightning network works... until everybody without vast sums of wealth have literally no alternative except to transact through approved L2 providers. Then we are right back at numbers in centralized databases with no restriction whatsoever.

For sure, you can keep channels open indefinitely. It won't be like dollars separated from gold though, it's still the same exact Bitcoin and the fund gets allocated at the opening of the channel.

That is what I was told 3 years ago.