I really believe in the potential of the Lightning Network, especially Ryan Fugger’s original idea of multihop payments. Imagine if every user acted as an intermediary, using crypto like Bitcoin or Ether as collateral. But maybe we could simplify it a bit too. There’s this concept of three-party novation that could make things less complicated and still keep it decentralized.
Honestly, not sure why the Lightning Network doesn’t get more chatter here. Is it too complex for people? Or are folks just more interested in Bitcoin’s price going up?
The payment coordination for Lightning was originally set up by Ryan Fugger way back in 2003. It’s kind of like his Ripple model, but with collateral added. He had a neat idea for penalties back in 2006, but it needs a better 3-phase commit system, which just came out last year. My concept is focusing on a simpler solution.
Why the sarcasm? The question raised is totally valid. My response gives a solid explanation. People need to stop being afraid to ask questions. Only those who ask can really learn, you know?
Came a bit late to the party on the old ‘commit register’ idea. Basically, it’s about Party A promising Party B something, and it works well for any-hop payment channels.
Here’s an update on what I think could work best for coordinating novation. You can even set up a novation network separately first, then build out from there to support billions. A 3-node majority vote hash lock sounds good. It tends to work better with just three nodes.
Yeah, but that’s the main issue! A three-node setup sounds simple, but once you scale to five or more, it gets messy. You need 3 out of 5 for decisions, which adds way more complexity. The communication load increases exponentially.
I’m not avoiding anything here. I’m talking about a novation network that limits agreements to three nodes at a time. It’s designed to simplify the coordination. N-hop payments are a different beast, and for that, the old Ripple ‘commit register’ can work but needs more centralized state interactions.