Lightning is based on a 2 of 2 multisig between channel partners.
No one does final settlement on a cup of coffee that scales over the Internet and across the world.
I don’t think we need a chain for micropayments. The sats are there underwritten by the multisig and the incentives for both channel partners to stay honest (they lose sats).
In your opinion doesn't this seem problematic though? Why can't final settlement/L1 be done or even attempted for a coffee or anything else? Isn't this THE original concept of Satoshi? Essentially.
Well using a PoW blockchain like Bitcoin you can do it on L1 you just have to wait.
If you make the block times too short you have more chance of block reorganization (multiple miners solve PoW) and the number of confirmations to be sure a transaction is sure balances itself out.
I don’t think that matters if you’re buying a house or conducting international trade (how long does fedwire take?)
I honestly don’t see a big problem with using an L2 for small payments.
I still have my cold storage savings.
I am free to pull my channel back on chain.
There are other issues with Lightning around privacy, hosting of lighting nodes, and standards that I think are more pressing than this.
Just my opinion.
Yes. This is what I'm getting at. Ppl smarter than me raise the same concerns lol.
I just had a wild idea.
What if block times/difficulty was randomized within a parameter? Like some would be 4 min target some would be 17?
What effects would this produce?
Who would set that?
The proof of work difficulty is set programmatically based on the amount of time the previous blocks took to mine (last 2016). It’s deterministic and cannot be randomly assigned.
Also the block times are ON AVERAGE 10 minutes.
Go over to https://mempool.space and look at the time between any 2 blocks. Some might be seconds apart, others might be 40 min. It all depends on how long it takes miners to find a hash that satisfies the block.
So you kind of have that now.
True. But other math could be deployed too. 10 min average blocks = ~6 an hour. I'm imagining a prgm that had a bit more randomization baked in to say active a 6 blocks an hour but not at even intervals of 10 min. I get how it already has an element of this tho... 1/
I admire how Monero at least attempted to break up mining with the differing algorithm to the point where mining for most is net negative. Something more pure about this IMO in efforts of decen and distri.
BTC has ossified. But I don't think all for the better always. 2/
A few mining pools do most of the work. I see the pros and cons to this.
I guess it's just hard to accept that the version of BTC is the best.
Especially when L1 can be slow or xpensive. End/
What you are saying in this whole discussion just shows that you haven’t done a lot of research. Dunning-Kruger-Effect in full force.
Go study at least 1000 hours about Bitcoin then come back for a discussion.
Why do even split your posts? Just say it in one post.
I have to agree with #[3] here.
I am by no means an expert but I think you need to look into how Bitcoin works and especially mining a bit more.
I don’t really care too much about Monero, I don’t think it’s a money I’m going to be long term saving with and the development of privacy first tools will probably make me less likely to use it.
#[3]
