Thunder Network - Any Use/Challenge for Dash?

ericsammons

ericsammons

Well-known member
Masternode Owner/Operator
The big Bitcoin news today is that Blockchain has released an alpha version of Thunder Network, which is the first actual implementation of the Lightning Network. Supposedly, it allows for instant transactions, and can handle up to 100,000 transactions per second (almost twice as much as Visa's peak capacity).

What is intriguing is that Thunder can be used by other cryptocurrencies as well. Would this be something that could benefit Dash? Or is the thinking that Evolution will already be robust enough to make Thunder unnecessary?

Also, if Thunder is successful, does it make InstantX no longer a selling point for Dash?
 
I have a few problems with this.

1. It's verifiable only through cryptography, so as I understand it, you can't verify on a block chain what is happening - sorta like Monero. If there is a loop hole where people can create more coins or cheat, it will be hard if not impossible to see.
2. Who is going to run all these new full nodes? Bitcoin already has a problem with node decline and now they want thousands more? Unless they do like Dash and incentivise the nodes, I see trouble ahead, and probably centralization to make it work.
3. Right now it's not secure, so make sure you don't try this with anyone you don't trust!

So is it a threat to Dash? Sure it is! Good to have competition, but in this area, Dash is so far ahead of Bitcoin. So in many ways, Dash actually has the first mover advantage here. I know people are holding back, thinking Bitcoin will have a better system, but really they are encumbered with a legacy system that they have to work around. Dash has all this cleanly and beautifully resolved, eloquently at the core. This will pay off big time, especially in cost. Just the fact that they want to have 2 networks will cost double to pay to use. Even if they manage to get a well distributed network going. The future of crypto currency will be competitive, and cost will have a LOT to do with it, even if it's cheaper than Banks to use.

I also question BlockchainInfo, and suspect they have an "in" where they will also be earning fees. I don't see this whole system being explained fully and have my suspicions.

"Thunder Network" is not secure yet and will undoubtedly be clunky to use. Dash is well on it's way to becoming a super easy to use system that is as familiar as existing payment systems. But they do have a TON of financing, so we're in a tight competition.

We've also been vetted over these past 2 years now. DarkSend works, InstantX works (excuse me, Privacy Protect and Instant Pay, right?)

They're just starting, and I'll bet they'll have quite a few hurdles and issues to overcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daf
Can nodes of the thunder network be trusted? Who will run the nodes, why will they run them, and how will they be paid? Dash has pretty good answers to these questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daf
Either altruism or they'll have to charge enough to make it worth their while to run a node, which means not cheap (no subsidy with coin creation) So yes, who will these people be?

@ericsammons what do you think? I'm not the brightest match in the box, and I'd like to hear what some of you brainy guys think :)
 
Of course this release has many problems, it is super early. I'm sure they will improve those weaknesses.

I don't know the inner workings very well, but I think lighting networks have a design problem in the fact that you need to open up channels with the other party. For frequent small payments this is great, but for one time ones it is another layer of complication. Software should manage it, but I'm not sure if they will be able to do it in a really easy way.

Also fragmentation. From what I understand, you can't open channels between different networks, so you need to be in the same one. If that is the case, a merchant would have two options: either force all clients to be in his network (not really good sales technique!) or to be in all them (which is clumsy and inconvenient). I'm sure there will be ways to connect networks and that kind of stuff, but again, this should be super easy and I'm not sure it will be.

What really worries me of this announcement is the impact of perception. Right now it is difficult to explain to some people that Bitcoin is not instant. People mistake instant propagation (and visibility in wallets) with real instant transactions. Announcements around LN will only make this even more confusing for the average user.
 
fernando said:
I don't know the inner workings very well, but I think lighting networks have a design problem in the fact that you need to open up channels with the other party. For frequent small payments this is great, but for one time ones it is another layer of complication. Software should manage it, but I'm not sure if they will be able to do it in a really easy way.
Click to expand...

This is my concern as well. Lightning networks appear to serve a real need if you have frequent small payments to the same people, but opening up channels every time I just want to make one payment to a stranger seems a bit cumbersome.

Overall, I think this was a good critique of lightning networks:

The Lightning Network is so Great that it has all Kinds of Problems
 
The main problem I have is that you have to lock up your funds in advance and keep them "in the channel". Who is going to keep hundreds or thousands of dollars (or euros or whatever) locked up for months? Dash solves this problem nicely, you are in control of the funds until you give somebody else control. Done. The Lightning model is flawed beyond belief. The Lightning network is trading IOUs, the Dash network is performing transactions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top