Nostr Web Client

I don't see how you can have offline payments without 3rd parties involved. some kind of sync system when back online?

But what happens in the case of multiple offline fund transfers if the node can't update it's channel balance?

Curious as to your thoughts and ideas

The real answer is to increase the layer 1 block size, so it's useable. While that is outside the scope of what you and me control, we do have the power to culturally infulence those around us to make that happen.

But this of course not what you want to hear, so,

Really transfers both on layer 1 and 2 are messages that are signed. With the layer 2 being an IOU. If you don't onion route it through the current system, I don't see why it can't be sent like a regular message. Right now I'm sending you this via Nostr and signing it. You can read this when you're online, but I don't have to stay online for you to read it. So why can't I send you layer 2 messages, and a server stores the message, but not the private key? It's all a game of who has what data when. There could be ways of having the reciever keep the private key, and bring it all at once to the server.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Liberty Farmer 1y ago 💬 3

This isn't a Bitcoin block convo, it's a LN offline payments one.

In nostr, here is always trust. Fairly big. That's the issue. You trust the relay operators. For notes in 99% of all notes, not a big deal.

For real money, larger sums, a mortgage payment, whatever, it could be a massive deal and that trust needs to be minimized.

Having a 3rd party server doesn't really help, they could always shutdown or not pass on the store, etc...

Just spit balling issues here. I have NO idea how to solve the node issue. my main lightning node has zero issues, plenty of liquidity, and requires very minimal maintenance and occasional rebalancing. But I'm pretty even on them anyways, so I don't see it as a big deal.

Perhaps the answer is a few levels. Trustless(minimized) by own node online, trusting a 3rd party server for passing on when online(block stream has this), self controlled hosted LN, and of course fully custodial.

It's silly to think everyone will run a node, as well as that everyone will or should be custodial.

SimplifiedPrivacy.com 1y ago

Well the lightning network is only needed BECAUSE blockstream kept the blocks small. Against the wishes of Satoshi:

nostr:nevent1qqs96f2xzgagsfl2e880xgdjs22ln04snslk9cadfl32u2ctvwd070spz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz9mhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx7um5wghxyctwvshspc3yws

Liberty Farmer 1y ago 💬 2

Holy hell have you left the conversation. And you started it.

Try and focus a bit and maybe we can discuss your actual topic at hand.

SimplifiedPrivacy.com 1y ago

check the one below it, I did answer you.

nostr:nevent1qqsvz5vsuzf2mtw32gc3d9rqgjctqd9qmm0488cayljns3dx6veq3ccpzpmhxue69uhk2tnwdaejumr0dshszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qg4waehxw309ahx7um5wghx77r5wghxgetk9uhzh4fd

Liberty Farmer 1y ago 💬 2

Not really.

You just went off about some other shitcoin they isn't related to LN, Bitcoin, etc...

You can't be opening channels Everytime you want with someone to make a payment offline. If they aren't online, you can't make a paymentnto then or open a channel.

It seems creating something totally is what you are looking for.

That's all good, but you mentioned offline payments and ideas for LN, and I explained the issues with that.

SimplifiedPrivacy.com 1y ago

I appologize if there was confusion in my explanation. I am NOT suggesting people open a channel with each person. I meant, we can redefine the technical problem to it's pieces.

If you can send async VIA ANY ONLINE guy who has a channel with the real receipient, then the NEW problem becomes how can we trust this guy not to bounce? By having pieces of the puzzle the WAY hoppr does it, but not using their coin. It could be a bitcoin seed phrase proving signing via zk proofs.

Liberty Farmer 1y ago

Ah! Gotcha. That makes more sense.

LN is amazing, but has a long way to go.

SimplifiedPrivacy.com 1y ago

Btw, you can do async payments if you open a channel direct with someone using existing tech modified.

Further, check out Hoppr. I'm not telling you to buy it, but look at the tech.

It's an Eth shitcoin, but they use an encryption scheme of revealing to each hop in onion routing the next piece of the puzzle. So if the real reciever, has a direct channel with the last hop of the lightning network, it can use a similar system, to not get access to funds, until it gets the last piece of the puzzle from the real reciever. Which is the same as "you can do async payments if you open a channel direct with someone"

Make sense?

21seasons 1y ago 💬 2

So you're big blocker? Do you know that the larger the size of the chain is, the harder it is to run and sync? If you really run the node you know that syncing the node is already pain in the ass..

SimplifiedPrivacy.com 1y ago

You know who is a big blocker? Satoshi Nakamodo:

nostr:nevent1qqs96f2xzgagsfl2e880xgdjs22ln04snslk9cadfl32u2ctvwd070spz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz9mhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx7um5wghxyctwvshspc3yws

21seasons 1y ago 💬 4

You know who put the 1 MB block limit? Satoshi Nakamoto. It is there for a reason.

Satoshi was most likely a human being. We tend to get things wrong when experimenting and innovating. Some of us also have great ability identify and fix things we got wrong in the first place.

SimplifiedPrivacy.com 1y ago

So you are sating Satoshi Nakamoto is wrong? Correct?

21seasons 1y ago 💬 1

I've learned that there have been multiple bugs in the Bitcoin code which Satoshi wrote initially and fixed later.

SimplifiedPrivacy.com 1y ago

Satoshi is a dude. I'm debating ideas

If you say Satoshi shouldn't be treated as a god, I agree. Now let's apply this to Blockstream buying out Bitcoin Core Devs

Saberhagen The Nameless 1y ago

Well that was already changed to 4MB with Segwit

21seasons 1y ago 💬 3

Correct. And some people argue that it is already too large.

Saberhagen The Nameless 1y ago

Have you seen Eric Voskuil syncing the entire Bitcoin blockchain in ~40 minutes on a $350 computer? It's not *that* large anymore for todays tech. Core just sucks.

SimplifiedPrivacy.com 1y ago

Yes what about storage costs falling. Is the same number correct in 20 years from now?

21seasons 1y ago

It's not only about the storage. In my view we need to explore and turn every stone to make tx's smaller and more scalable before even starting to think about the block size.

There's still a lot of possibilities..

Karadenizli 1y ago 💬 1

Ultimately, the reason lighting doesn't work offline is because finality is an unnegotiable in bitcoin (and every other decentralized crypto).

Lightning relies on time locks to give one party time to respond to the other stealing. It's not just me handing you a check and we treat that as money, it's that we change the net balance on the check every time.

Let's say theres a channel with .5 btc on each side. If I want to send you .1, I just sign a check that has .4 going to me and .6 going to you.

But what if I then scam you by submitting the first .5/.5 check? The enforcement of off chain btc is the threat of going on chain. Part of the .5/.5 check is that it's invalid for a day after hitting the chain. That's my window to expose your fraud and punish you for trying to steal.

All of lightning security is that you have time to respond to attacks. That'd why you need to be online - to respond in that short time frame. It could be possible to extend the time lock to give better time to respond, and use a mobile app to watch out but the need to be online isn't going anywhere.

That being said, it's becoming less and less of a burden as time passes to be always online. This is really not the main thing holding back lightning, I think the bigger thing will be improvements on liquidity management and overall UI. Something like Muun is the greatest thing for new users because it is so simple and it "just works" most of the time.

SimplifiedPrivacy.com 1y ago

I agree with the time security issue. That's why Lightning is not good, and we should we use Monero.

This being said, that's the way lightning is designed now. They COULD transition to a new system like Hoppr with it acting off the dude who has a direct channel with the receiver. And you'd have to re-do the security to incorporate this issue that you mentioned with time.